Guest bleeds Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Bleeds, how many times do I have to say it? I don't have a chip on my shoulder, I'm not even remotely upset at anything taking place "on the internet" and on a message board. The second part of this? I'm just saying that it would have come off better had you said "we" instead of "I". Just an observation and no, wasn't something to argue over. Okay, I will type slowly. I said "I" because Five0 made a comment about "me". Not "we". Not "we the people". Me. Nothing else. There wasn't some vast conspiracy to focus everything onto me. It was an exchange between Five0 and me. The context of it being between Five0 and me explains everything. If you had done some of that cop stuff and investigated this before you launched yourself into the middle of it, you would know all this, and you could have saved yourself some time, and the site some bandwidth. BTW, at what point did you come under the impression I was concerned about how I came off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bleeds Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Still waiting on the explanation of the difference in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th amendments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluePirate Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Still waiting on the explanation of the difference in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th amendments. The 3rd Amendment is good as is while the 4th and 5th Amendments are good except when they aren't convenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyefan1984 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Read it again. The framers of the COTUS intended the 5th Amendment to protect citizens from being forced to self-incriminate. No one "has" to. Uh, except of course for DWI suspects. The intent of the Amendment is that we can't be forced to. Activist judges/justices, of course, have bastardized that intent to mean we can be forced to when it is convenient for the authorities to do so. Does that include rapists as well? Because even though "fluids" are left behind at the scene, you need to have a warrant to secure a DNA match, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildcatsRule Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I'M STEALING THIS FROM ANOTHER BOARD. It is refering to the 5th Amendment. "When our forefathers fashioned this amendment... what do you think their intent was? Do you think they intended to say "No person shall be forced to testify if, by doing so, he would incriminate himself in a crime.." Or do you think the sentiment was "No person shall be forced to.. in any way... incriminate himself in a crime..." The reason I ask this is because other amendments have been re-interpreted to fit today's medical advances... but this one has not. While we cannot be forced to verbally testify against ourselves... we can be forced to give DNA samples, hair samples, finger prints, etc.... all of which are admissible as evidence in a court of law... so we are in effect... being forced to be biologically witnesses against ourselves. Now I'm not asking if you think it is GOOD. Most of us think it is good... because it links criminals to crimes definitively.... I am asking if it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bleeds Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Does that include rapists as well? Because even though "fluids" are left behind at the scene, you need to have a warrant to secure a DNA match, correct? Oh yeah, I forgot. WildcatsRule, activist judges/justices say you can ignore the 4th and 5th amendments on rape cases too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildcatsRule Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Oh yeah, I forgot. WildcatsRule, activist judges/justices say you can ignore the 4th and 5th amendments on rape cases too. Man. You guys are right. I should be a cop when I grow up. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bleeds Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I'M STEALING THIS FROM ANOTHER BOARD. It is refering to the 5th Amendment. "When our forefathers fashioned this amendment... what do you think their intent was? Do you think they intended to say "No person shall be forced to testify if, by doing so, he would incriminate himself in a crime.." Or do you think the sentiment was "No person shall be forced to.. in any way... incriminate himself in a crime..." The reason I ask this is because other amendments have been re-interpreted to fit today's medical advances... but this one has not. While we cannot be forced to verbally testify against ourselves... we can be forced to give DNA samples, hair samples, finger prints, etc.... all of which are admissible as evidence in a court of law... so we are in effect... being forced to be biologically witnesses against ourselves. Now I'm not asking if you think it is GOOD. Most of us think it is good... because it links criminals to crimes definitively.... I am asking if it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL." According to rulings from activist judges/justices, and of course Five0 and BEF, the 4th and 5th Amendments allow blood to be drawn, as the result of a warrant, despite neither the text, nor the intent of either contain those allowances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bleeds Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Still waiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildcatsRule Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 According to rulings from activist judges/justices, and of course Five0 and BEF, the 4th and 5th Amendments allow blood to be drawn, as the result of a warrant, despite neither the text, nor the intent of either contain those allowances. Somehow I don't think this is the spirit of the COTUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluePirate Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Somehow I don't think this is the spirit of the COTUS. I know it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bleeds Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Somehow I don't think this is the spirit of the COTUS. And suddenly a vast plain of understanding and agreement opened up from what was once a dense, tangled jungle of animosity and distrust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyefan1984 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Still waiting on the explanation of the difference in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th amendments. 3rd Amendment: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. 3rd Amendment clearly states that the government cannot force a home owner to house the military without the owners consent, but in a manner prescribed by law. 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. Under the 4th Amendment the government cannot enter your home OR your person OR property without a warrant, for any reason. 5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. The 5th Amendment states that the government can't take private property without just compensation. In other words, according to the 3rd Amendment where the government can make law pertaining to the military being housed against the owners wishes, according to the 5th Amendment, the home owner would have to be justly compensated. The 3rd Amendment deals with what the government can and cannot do with the property of the home owner as dealing with the military. The 4th Amendment deals with the rights of the person to be secure in his home, in his person, and against unreasonable searches and seizures which would be a direct contradiction to the 3rd where the government COULD make a law for it to happen. The 5th Amendment deals with due process of law and where private property can't be taken without just compensation. I hope that covers just about everything. But if not, then I'm all ears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyefan1984 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 According to rulings from activist judges/justices, and of course Five0 and BEF, the 4th and 5th Amendments allow blood to be drawn, as the result of a warrant, despite neither the text, nor the intent of either contain those allowances. Okay, I'll bite. Just what is BEF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bleeds Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Okay BEF, while you decide it's okay to defend the 3rd Amendment by quoting the text, but need the rulings of activist judges/justices to defend the 4th and 5th Amendments, I will explain to you why the 3rd still means what it says. It's because it's among the least cited sections of the COTUS. Why is that important? I'm glad you asked. When judges/justices have to consider/interpret an amendment, it presents itself to their own ideas of what it means. When that happens, as we now know in grand fashion, sometimes they change the intent of the amendment completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildcatsRule Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Okay, I'll bite. Just what is BEF? It is something that is rarely understood and most here will question why we bother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bleeds Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Okay, I'll bite. Just what is BEF? Buck Eye Fan BEF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bleeds Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 3rd Amendment: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. 3rd Amendment clearly states that the government cannot force a home owner to house the military without the owners consent, but in a manner prescribed by law. 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. Under the 4th Amendment the government cannot enter your home OR your person OR property without a warrant, for any reason. 5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. The 5th Amendment states that the government can't take private property without just compensation. In other words, according to the 3rd Amendment where the government can make law pertaining to the military being housed against the owners wishes, according to the 5th Amendment, the home owner would have to be justly compensated. The 3rd Amendment deals with what the government can and cannot do with the property of the home owner as dealing with the military. The 4th Amendment deals with the rights of the person to be secure in his home, in his person, and against unreasonable searches and seizures which would be a direct contradiction to the 3rd where the government COULD make a law for it to happen. The 5th Amendment deals with due process of law and where private property can't be taken without just compensation. I hope that covers just about everything. But if not, then I'm all ears. Not bad. But that's not what I asked for. I want to know why you can defend the 3rd using the text of the amendment, but need rulings and opinions to defend the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bleeds Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 No hurry. I'm done for tonight. WCR (WildcatsRule), I'm glad you have taken time to enter this discussion and ask very good questions. BTW (hehehe), you've made some very astute observations also. Take your time BEF. I'll check it tomorrow. Night ladies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyefan1984 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Okay BEF, while you decide it's okay to defend the 3rd Amendment by quoting the text, but need the rulings of activist judges/justices to defend the 4th and 5th Amendments, I will explain to you why the 3rd still means what it says. It's because it's among the least cited sections of the COTUS. Why is that important? I'm glad you asked. When judges/justices have to consider/interpret an amendment, it presents itself to their own ideas of what it means. When that happens, as we now know in grand fashion, sometimes they change the intent of the amendment completely. Actually, the 3rd Amendment doesn't pertain to my job. However, as you have pointed out, the 4th and 5th clearly does. So at what point do we decide which of these judges are right, and which ones are wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyefan1984 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Buck Eye Fan BEF. Ahh, okay. :thumbsup: Not bad. But that's not what I asked for. I want to know why you can defend the 3rd using the text of the amendment, but need rulings and opinions to defend the others. Because the 3rd doesn't pertain to my job, but the 4th and 5th does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyefan1984 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 No hurry. I'm done for tonight. WCR (WildcatsRule), I'm glad you have taken time to enter this discussion and ask very good questions. BTW (hehehe), you've made some very astute observations also. Take your time BEF. I'll check it tomorrow. Night ladies. Night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Five0pd310 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Five0, I have a question. Earlier in the thread you said: Below is a generic Miranda warning: Now, the Miranda warning above would indicate your comment may not be correct. You said you don't have to Mirandize someone if you don't ask incriminating questions. But the warning tells us ANYTHING the suspect says (even though he/she has not been asked) can, and will be used against him/her in a court of law. So, it would seem you don't have to ask incriminating questions in order for comments uttered by the suspect to be entered into evidence. As such, the Miranda warning is needed, or at least it would seem that way. Am I missing something? It's simply just warning him that anything he says may be used against him. Whether asked or not. Utterances not caused by my questions are allowable in court. I did not ask for the information, he simply supplied it. Again, 2 things are needed before Miranda is required. 1) Arrest that is charge specific 2) Incriminating questions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Five0pd310 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Just curious. What would be the reasons for not Mirandizing any arrested person? (I would think that it would be done "just incase".) It can imply certain things about the case that may not be true. As an aside, I Mirandize all DWI arrestees because I conduct a DWI interview on them during booking. They're arrested, I'm asking potentially incriminating questions; it is required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Five0pd310 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I'd like to see a list of things that cops use as PC when obtaining a warrant for a blood draw. I assume you mean in a DWI investigation? some but not all: 1) Bloodshot watery eyes 2) Odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath 3) Unsafe driving 4) Swaying as he stands 5) Open alcohol containers 6) Slurred speech 7) Evidence of imparing drug use 8) The list goes on and on 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