leroy

Dave:_______________ If this is right: If this is right; i agree with you. My line of thinkin was that it could be read two ways. That was the reason for the arguement. leroy

ET:___________________ Are you sayin here that it is your judgement (...and apparently in Dave's judgement; although i hesitate to speak for him and put words in his mouth...) that the supremes appear to be sayin that they believe that in this specific case, and in this case alone --- that the "exigent requirements" were met; or that they will from this point forward "....they will assume that any indepependent judgement made by the LEO have been met...."? If it is the first; i can buy the "there aint any significant change position." If it is the second, we are back on the warpath again with LEO being able to do a no knock, kick in the door search without any independent review for "probable cause" when there is no danger, mayhem, hot pursuit, or clear criminal behavior in progress? leroy

Dave:_______________ These exact words of the opinion effectively say (...i think....) that "we (...the court...) will always take the officers sole judgement as a bonafide "exigent" circumstance" (...if im readin this right...): When the supremes say "we need not decide..." thay are, in effect, saying that the "officer will decide for himself (...whithout any consultation; again ---- if we're reading this right....).By the way; i hope you are right and a bunch of us and komrade ginsberg are wrong. leroy

Interesting read. Thanks for posting it. leroy

Dave:_______________ If i understand this right; here is the "money pronouncement". Its found on page 20 of the pdf of the opinion. Here is the quote: The italicized portion talkin about the "exigent circumstances" presumes that there are some; and leaves that judgement to the individual officer. That says to me, at least, that if LEO "thinks" a crime is goin on; mind ya, he doesnt KNOW ITS GOIN ON, he simply "thinks" it. He can proceed with a warrantless no knock entry and explain it all later. You couldnt do this before this particular ruling unless there was clear evidence of a "crime in progress", "hot pursuit", etc. Check out what that noted commie ruth bader ginsburg says about this (...a one in a million shot, she is probably right on this one...) It starts on page 23 of the pdf. Here it is: Now, do ya see what were all talkin about? leroy

I will grant that there is a difference between building magic components in electronic sights and assembling suburbans. PS-- i also got a toyota prerunner. proudly built in kalefornia by non union (...to some "rat"; but im ok this that.....) labor. HEHEHE. Toyota didnt need no stinkin bailout!!! Heep up the good work! leroy

Guys:_______________ Ive got a 99 gmc suburban with 226K miles built in mexico. It's doin pretty good. leroy

Dave:___________________ Please read this post from Redbarron: Then click the supremecourt.gov link included in the post and read the supreme's ruling. Then go below and read all my baloney and it will make more sense. The real problem aint eh IN supreme court thing (...except in IN...). The "real problem is the US Supreme Court Ruling. As i understand the "expanding the cause for search" (...and bear in mind that i may be missing or misintrepreting something here...) here is what i think i understand: In the "old days" before this supreme court ruling; LEO needed a review by a judge prior to obtaining a "no knock unannounced" warrant. Its also my understanding that AFTER the issuance of that warrant, LEO serving the warrant would go to the house identified in the warrant; then serve it. The details of serving the warrant would be TO KICK IN THE DOOR AND SIMULATANEOUSLY IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS POLICE. That gives the element of surprize and identifies the door kickers as legitimate law enforcement; and, in effect, allows you the time to stand down and not resist the entry. Warrants would be served during the normal times specified by local law , unless the review allowed for a "midnite"raid because of "vicious criminals, threats, etc". Now to the CHANGES: This ruling appears (...to me at least...) to remove the requirement to obtain a judicial review. It appears to me (...again, i hope im wrong about this...) that all LEO needs to do an "unnannounced kick in the door" entry is "to think that a crime is in progress or that evidence is being destroyed". The change appears to be the removal of a judicial review for "probable cause" and prior to warrant issue and substitution of the individual officer's judgement without any review. That means, in effect, if im LEO and im feuding with you and harboring a "hateful grudge", all i need to do to bushwhack you is to "think something is going on" work out an administrative approval with my supervisor, then kick in the door, shoot or jail you, and go on about my business. At the resulting inquest or trial; all i have to do is to say "i thought criminal activity or destruction of evidence was in progress". That gives an air tight defense for doing this heinous deed. I fully agree with you that "crimes in progress" and "hot pursuit" is not changed by this ruling. The thing that does appear to change is the judicial review and what i would term the "i thought evidence was being destroyed" defense. The whole crux of all the squalling and hollering about the fourth amendment violation is the removal of the independent judicial review for probable cause for "i thought they wuz destroyin evidence" and "i thought there wuz a crime in progress" pronouncement. Hope this helps (...and i hope im wrong about it too...) leroy PS; WHAT WE REALLY NEED IS FOR SOMEONE WHO IS A LAWYER TO READ THE SUPREME COURT DECISION AND GIVE US HIS OPINION AS TO WHAT IT SAYS. I (...AND OTHERS MAY BE MISSIN SOMETHING...). I HOPE WE ARE...

Thanks Cap, BBR, and Dolomite. I took a look at the zoom dot and i like it. Seems to be a great idea. Thanks again. leroy

Dave:_________________ Were goin around in a big circle here. You seem to be missing a key fact (...as near as i can tell...). That fact is that if im a law abiding citizen and the door breaks in in the middle of the nite, there aint time to find out who is knocking it down. That, to me at least, is a very dangerous situation for participants and bystanders on both sides of the door. I got no problem with the police announcing who they are and expecting immediate compliance with "were commin in". That lets you know who they are; and that's what i think should be goin on. This new ruling seems to allow (...ill grant i dont know this for sure; but it "seems" to to me...) for the officer drivin down the street to suddenly have a "vision or revelation" that something unlawful is goin on, and then he can proceed to kick in doors without benefit of a warrant, review, or anything else (...other than an ok from his supervisor...) because he "thinks that there is somethin goin on". That puts this entire decision at one level without any review. My complaint (..aside from the ourtragous infringement on the fourth amendment....) about this is as much an officer safety issue as it is a citizen safety issue. You seem to believe that only civilians and would be hoodlums get shot. That aint necessarily so. Officers may survive the shootin better because of body armor, etc; but it is entirely possible that both sides of this misunderstandin can get hurt or killed; especially innocent bystanders. Officers have family and the folks who could potentially get their doors kicked in have family too. Nobody wins in this if the shootin starts and the ones shootin back are only guilty of being at the wrong house (...which may happen to be theirs...) at the wrong time. Thats why this is so outrageous to most folks that look at it. I certainly hope im wrong about this; but thats what i believe the rulling says. Thats why i and others are stirred up about it. leroy

Dave:________________ My problem is "no knock door kickin searches" fishing for crimes you think are in progress; not the ones you actually know to be in progress. The supreme court ruling is about "thinkin that evidence is being done away with"; not "hot pursuit" or "mayhem in progress". That is what has everyone's hackles up. The supremes essentially said that "thinking that evidence is being destroyed" is enough to allow for door kickin searches and that the citizen had better not interefere with them. My problem (...and everyone elses problem...) goes this way: Number one: It appears that this ruling would allow the sheriff to ride down the street in front of my house. He can "imagine a crime in progress and/ or destruction of evidence in progress" (...if im understanding correctly...) at ANY time, not specified times for serving warrants. Number two: He can proceed to initiate a no knock search and i better not interfere with it. The big problem is: ...how do i know that it is, in fact the sheriff that is doin the door kickin when im layin in my bed in the middle of the nite with my shotgun or my AR next to my nitestand?? When the door cracks in, what would your reaction be? As i and others have said; i cant tell who is who at nite and i may genuinely think my and my family member's lives are in danger when the door busts open and envoke the "castle doctrine". When i do that; either i or someone else could be dead. That, in a nutshell, is the crux of the problem. Any legal niceties and pronouncements may not mean too much to those layin dead or maimed as the result of this foolishness. Havin said all this; do ya understand why everyone is stirred up? Number three: When the shootin and killin is all over and someone is maimed and/or dead; the sheriff who started all this can invoke this legal precident and say " i thought they wuz destroyin evidence." The poor private citizen (...if he and his family members are still alive...) is turned into a criminal simply because he was protecting his home and family. RE: the "random house to house sheriff" is indeed the one you've identified. looks to me like he may have come to his senses. He may have realized that there will be another election in the near future. Hope this clears things up a bit more. leroy

Good choice too!! leroy

Guns:_________ RE: This: Im like you. I think a tornado blew him up here. Keep up the good work!!. leroy

Dave:______________ Read the supreme court decision. Not the IN decision. The supreme court decision that scotches the IN decision is about police suspecting the destruction of evidence; not whupping up on your wife and barring entry. The IN sheriff that is talking about "random house to house searches" aint talkin about whuppin up on your wife and barring entry either. As has been said before, i dont condone whuppin up on anyone (...nor do i believe anyone else here on TGO or in the "real world" does either...) while LEO or anyone else is standin around watchin for that matter. All my posts are aimed at "unnanounced no knock searches"; not standin by to get a warrant while some bozo kills someone else. If an officer has "probable cause" to think something like mayhem is goin on or is in 'hot pursuit"; you dont need a warrant, and im ok with that. I have a problem with fishin trips, not real crimes in progress. Sorry for any misunderstandin. leroy

This is a neat place!! Highly recommended. Depending on how old your son is; ya need to put out an APB to some of our brother TGO'ers to allow his to see a locomotive up close and mabee even get in the cab. I would recommend this for the bigger kids --- say 8 or 9 up. There is also a great place in chattanooga called the Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum (...Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum - chattanooga, TN ...). It is a wonderful place; highly recommended. For the ultimate in railroad coolness; here is the place: Cass Scenic Railroad State Park . Its a long way away; but it is truly a great thing!! Have fun!!! leroy

ET:________________ RE: this: The fact is that i do not agree with the ruling on principle (...remember, courts can make lousy decisions too. This is one, in my opinion...). Ive never deviated from that positon since the beginning of the discussion. I've also said its ok to have differing opinions. The fact is that the justice enterprize can and has made bad rulings and mistakes. There was a time when the supreme court ruled that a certain class of people (...slaves...) were property and could be bought and sold like cattle. In regards to the intrepretation of facts and data: I am a man who has made his living playing with numbers; stacking up facts and data in the best possible light. Data manipulation is not a lie in the strict sense; only a "creative" use of facts and data with the goal of shedding the best possible light on a specific situation. There is an old limeric that i would call your attention to: "....Figures dont lie, but all liars can figure (...especially if they have a professional and compelling need to. Read that: job security and demonstrating progress...). Numbers and statistics are just that; and they should be viewed for what they are, nothing more. As you can tell; i do not worship the law nor those who are sworn to uphold it. I intend to respect the law and those who are sworn to enforce it as long as they are deemed worthy of that respect; and by and large they are. Do i think they make mistakes, cover them up, take advantage, and obfuscate the facts; even stretching as far as wrongdoing? You bet. By and large (...thankfully...), those instances are rare, but they are there; and some are heinous. I think the justice enterprize is pretty much like everything else. That means that the whole spectrum of society; all the way from those who are honest, noble, and truly called to this vocation to the lousiest, rattiest, sorriest among the debris of mankind are represented. We can quibble about the details of qualifications on this; but it is a fact. I view the legal enterprize as a necessary evil that does some good. Others here see it as a holy calling and an infallible definition of what is good for us "unwashed rustics" or ordinary citizens. If you view the law and and its apparagics as as the ultimate authority in government and leave out the citizen's voice; you devolve into classes and become cynical concerning your brother otherwise law-abiding citizens who dont see things the way you do. This allows those who are worshipers of the law and its apparagics to become "super citizens" and "upholders of rightdoing" which can allow for a casual kicking around of us dissenters. That effectively repeals the First Amendment and the right to vote --- you simply dont need the vote or free political speech -- the legal enterprize will tell you all you need to know, dictate what you will do, then enforce it at the point of the gun and arrest powers if you dont do what they say. I dont like that, and neither sould you. That's why we have elections, debate, and "checks and balances" (...for the time being, anyway...). The problem with our system at this juncture in history is the tendency of our society to see the law and the supreme court as the ultimate authority; rather that what it was originally meant to be. A mere interperter of the law. As our society devolves further into hedonism and anarchy and ethical teachings are forgotten and/or disregarded; more "tools" are needed to fight crime and keep the peace. This results in the citizens of the usa being increasingly put upon in the name of giving law enforcement all the tools they asked for to "fight crime" thru a continual lessening and restriction of freedoms that was never envisioned by the founding fathers. Every time the fight aint goin too well; the law enforcement enterprize asks for more authority and leeway to infringe upon various citizens rights. That is exactly what this recent ruling and those berfore it is. I dont like that and neither should you. I wont play the "facts" game in regards to crime reduction; simply because my casual obvservations tell me a different story. My neighborhood is simply not as safe as it was 10 or 20 years ago; and there are plenty of folks who would join me in that opinion. I'll close with this: This issue is, at its heart, a philosophical one. The question is this: Do you believe that the incursions into and resulting limitations upon your freedoms guaranteed by the constitution as the result of these rulings are worth the little bit of additional help given to those sworn uphold the law or not? My vote is no. It may be ok for you; it aint for me. As regards to "facts replacement". I dont believe there has been any; and i would ask you to point out specific examples. There has, indeed, been a different conclusion drawn --- worlds apart. Incidents cited in my posts are true. You may take a different view of them and thats ok. Casual observation and a bit of research will prove otherwise. When you stoop to calling things that are true untrue; you are trying to impune the character and motives of those who disagree with you to lessen their credibility. That trick may work in court; but it is, at it's core, unethical. I've defamed you in no way. I have questioned your judgements and conclusions; not your motives. You need not question mine. I find that offensive. Hope this little essay finishes this discussion. It is at a clear impasse. leroy

Et and other opiners: ______________ Reckon there could be a "confilct of interest" and/or "interference with or prohibition of work" by government workers here? leroy

Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heinrich. Evidently New Mexico Congressional District 1 (....link here: Preview Map ...) which includes Santa Fe is now certified "moonbat" territory. It looks like that district 1 is slowly turning demorat. Patdowns at the prom (...ithey could be invasive?....) shouldnt be a surprise for these folks. Mabee the adults will take the assylum back over soon. Keep up the good work. leroy

Dear fellow TGO'ers:__________________ I need to round up another red dot type sight for our bushmaster. Have been looking at the Aimpoint M series red dots (....we've got an EOTech, so i know about them...). In a nutshell; what is the difference in the M2 vs M4 series red dots (...we dont need the NV settings...) other than price? I like the Aimpoint because of the great battery life and the fact it has a single red dot. I would appreciate your collective opinions on them. Thanks in advance. leroy

ET:____________ RE: This: Really? I do not think that you or anyone else here is qualified to make this call. You may not like my analysis and thinking, but you cant be intellectually honest and open minded and make the judgement that im "making facts fit my opinion." That calls into question my innermost thinking and my motives. My opinion is, in fact, my opinion; just like your "opinion" is yours. No one here has called into question the "motives" of those arguing these points until now. You need to think about that a bit. Opinion is just that: ..."opinion"... . Everybody has got 'em and many times they differ; just like now. Opinion is based on both facts and perceptions. Perceptions are the perview of those that have them. You see this as business as usual. I see it as a bad call which will shortly be abused. The fact is that it's hard to defend your opinion. That's why we seem to be movin to the next phase. That phase seems to be calling into question the motives of those that disagree with you. That aint the way to win. More than that, i firmly believe that there are no "winners" with this one. Only those who agree or disagree. By the way: Dave:___________ Dont disagree with any of this: leroy

ET:___________ We can (...and are...) havin a big long winded discussion about all this. There are folks on both sides of it. We can agree to disagree. I can agree with lots of what you have to say in the above post; but it does not change my opinion on this one. This is simply a case of bad law and "the ends justifying the means" in my view. There is a county sheriff in Indiana who has advocated "random house to house searches" based on this ruling by the IN Supreme Court. There is a 13 page thread on this very subject on the IN Gun Owners Forum (...as of a few minutes ago...). As to "laxity in enforcement" ... These folks that are in jail for "drug related" crime are the little fish. We simply dont put the big ones in jail. This fact is obvious from casual inspection. The "drug problem" aint gettin smaller; someone must be continuing to furnish drugs for the addicts. I will grant that these "smaller fish" are doin the breakin and entering and are, to some extent, being caught. The fact is that we are witnessing a continuing breakdown of society and folks are scared. In that atmosphere, the law is viewed as largely ineffective. Law enforcement is loosing this battle. That is the reason for this very ruling. Those that believe that the end of society should be a docile society Kept safe and policed by law enforcement would do well to consider that the most efficient form of government (...read that control of the citizenry...) is a dictatorship. In that system the dictators make all the decisions and enforce the rules without question. Our system is considerably less efficient and a lot better for the individual citizen. No one here wants the "efficient solution". No one here is blaspheming responsible law enforcement. They (...and i...) are criticizing a decision that flies in the face of a free people, all done in the name of "enforcement of law". This is a bad idea. I intentionally added the citations of the home invasions because no knock LEO searches can be mistaken for them. I'm sure you can appreciate that. leroy

Dave:_____________ When this kind of thing is goin on per your example here: If i see it or it comes to my ears, i wont need the law. I'll take care of it myself. I simply will not need the assistance of the "law" (....and neither should you....). You may believe that the "law" is the great protector of all that is good and holy in society. I (...and many others here...) simply dont believe that; and neither should you. The LEO establishment, the justice enterprise, and all it's apparagics regularly make mistakes. Simple observation of their operation will tell you that. In my mind, it is far better to veer on the side of right doing than it is to allow agents of government act with impunity and immunity. Take the time to read this:http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-Lead-Story/in-sheriff-if-we-need-to-conduct-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will.html. Mark cited it in an earlier post. It advocates random house to house searches. Remember this, kickin in doors and shooting is a two way street. This business about immunity and saying "it was a tragic mistake" means nothing to those who get killed or maimed. No amount of "legal recourse" and trial baloney can can erase this truth. The fact is that when someone is layin dead or maimed for life, that is a tragic, irreversible (...and quite possibly wrong...) decision that someone made. It applies equally to both LEO and the citizen. In either case, it will not (...and cannot...) lessen the devastation brought on surviving (...or maimed...) members of either side of this tragic mistake. We as a society have decided to confer upon the LEO cadre the authority to take the lives of citizens based on split second decisions and 'hunches". That is, indeed, a most serious responsibility. As such, it should be very carefully applied and protected. This ruling flies in the face of this responsibility in my opinion. You may be part of the group that worships the law and think that whatever the "law" does is ok. That is simply not so, and no amount of "whitewashing", apologetics, and examples can erase that. My opinion does, indeed, diverge from yours and that's ok with me. We can disagree. Having said all that; dont presume to lecture me or anyone eles here because i dont see it your way. The way i see things, ya aint equipped too well with evidence to substantiate your position. You can cheer (...and/or argue...) for one side or the other; but dont presume to blaspheme and berate those who dont agree. If this was clear cut; it would have never made it to the courts and there wouldnt be a discussion about the Fourth Amendment. This aint about "domestic abuse"; it's about kickin a door in where you "think a drug crime is in progress". Read the opinion and the related info. Police (...and citizens as well...) have long had all the tools they need to handle crimes they "see in progress". This one is about "thinking one is in progress". Hows that? leroy

I think this is a bit over the top: Most folks simply want to be left alone and secure in their own homes. I keep hearing about this "war on drugs" and handling of thugs. There aint much of that goin on in my estimation. If LEO gets lucky enough (...or, in most cases, is allowed....) to find some of these chumps; the legal system simply lets them go. In my mind, at least, the idea of "agressive enforcement" of laws is laughable. I and many others are, indeed, alarmed at the idea that the police or anyone else for that matter could kick your door in without announcing themselves all in the name of "suspicion of wrongdoing". ET: I noticed that you live in north knox county (...powell...). In the last couple of years there have been two or three home invasions that resulted in death either to the perpetrators of the invasion or the homeowner. There is a case on trial right now in the knox county court RE: a home invasion in south knoxville that left three people dead. Two innocents in the house; and one thug. This crime was perpetrated on a retired LEO officer, who the perpetrators knew, and were willing to try to kill in order to take his perscription medication. The fact is that folks are edgy. They do not feel safe in their own homes and are wary of those knocking on their doors; let alone those who would put their foot to the door and kick their way in; no matter who they purport to be --- thug or LEO. There are lots of folks (...including me...) who cant tell the difference when the door cracks in; and that is the exact crux of the problem. To be looked upon as "protectors of the community" and legitimate representatives of government, it is my view (...and i believe the view of many others...) that LEO should be held to a high standard of conduct. Once you kick in the wrong door and shoot the wrong family member, it simply aint enough to say "sorry, we made a mistake", and go on about your business. To say that these "wrong entries" dont happen is to ignore reality. I do not believe that the LEO enterprise is in any way anything other than a microcosm of anything other than the whole of society. That says to me that they are just as prone to do the wrong or mistaken thing as anyone else. This aint LEO bashing; its a simple observation of the reality of things. The fact is that this ruling is dangerous to both citizens and LEO. The point of this whole little essay is to say in the kindest possible terms that not all judicial rulings are beneficial or necessarily correct. I'll close with this observation:.... In our system (...for the time being, at least...) the government derives its power from the consent of the governed (...as some smart guy said years ago...). When government infringes on that consent (...which i think this does...), there is an inevitable pushback. The wise among the "governors" understand that well and are faithful stewards of the power handed to them by the "consent of the governed". This ruling stretches the forbearance of the governed and means nothing to the thug element in our society. All in all, this is a bad ruling and should be quietly set aside. There are simply places where application of this ruling is a dangerous thing. This ruling presupposes a docile and unarmed populace. There are places where this is simply not so. Many of them are in Tennessee (...and i would assume, in other locations as well...). Food for thought. leroy

BerettaBri:_________________ Welcome!! RE: This Drive up to the center of norris and check in at the norris police department. They can guide ya up to the range. They are good guys. leroy

Caster:_______________ Check this out: Houston shootout sequence unclear » Knoxville News Sentinel. These guys were tried twice. Mistrial (...i think first...). Acquittal on second. leroy