TexasCHLforum.com

texanjoker wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Those who approved it should be fired. If no one approved it then the troopers who actually did it should be fired. If they had permission they should be suspended as "just following orders" is not an excuse, so "hey the boss said I could" doesn't cut it either.

Seems fair. I think they should burn down their homes too and take away their kids so that those vile offenders can't taint the next generation.

It is rather concerning that people believe everything they read in the liberal media. One would think people would want factual information vs jumping on the bandwagon without proof of any wrong doing. Just a thought, but the same liberal media thinks Obama is the greatest thing to happen to the US. Does that mean we are surrounded by Obama supporters?

Its interesting that those defending police curb stomping the Bill of Rights for a private employer are then calling others who disagree Obama supporters. Does that mean Obama haters hate the Constitution?

cb1000rider wrote: Think an "off duty" LEO can't pull you over in his/her own unmarked car while wearing Magnum PI shorts and issue a citation? Think again. :-)

Only if he has the cool 'stache though...

(oh man now the theme song is in my head)

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Those who approved it should be fired. If no one approved it then the troopers who actually did it should be fired. If they had permission they should be suspended as "just following orders" is not an excuse, so "hey the boss said I could" doesn't cut it either.

Seems fair. I think they should burn down their homes too and take away their kids so that those vile offenders can't taint the next generation.

It is rather concerning that people believe everything they read in the liberal media. One would think people would want factual information vs jumping on the bandwagon without proof of any wrong doing. Just a thought, but the same liberal media thinks Obama is the greatest thing to happen to the US. Does that mean we are surrounded by Obama supporters?

Its interesting that those defending police curb stomping the Bill of Rights for a private employer are then calling others who disagree Obama supporters. Does that mean Obama haters hate the Constitution?

Which of the 1st 10 amendments do you feel was "curb stomped" by the LEOs?

gigag04 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Those who approved it should be fired. If no one approved it then the troopers who actually did it should be fired. If they had permission they should be suspended as "just following orders" is not an excuse, so "hey the boss said I could" doesn't cut it either.

Seems fair. I think they should burn down their homes too and take away their kids so that those vile offenders can't taint the next generation.

It is rather concerning that people believe everything they read in the liberal media. One would think people would want factual information vs jumping on the bandwagon without proof of any wrong doing. Just a thought, but the same liberal media thinks Obama is the greatest thing to happen to the US. Does that mean we are surrounded by Obama supporters?

Its interesting that those defending police curb stomping the Bill of Rights for a private employer are then calling others who disagree Obama supporters. Does that mean Obama haters hate the Constitution?

Which of the 1st 10 amendments do you feel was "curb stomped" by the LEOs?

#4. Pretty obvious to most people.

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.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:

gigag04 wrote: Which of the 1st 10 amendments do you feel was "curb stomped" by the LEOs?

#4. Pretty obvious to most people.

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.

Anygunanywhere

I was hoping 4 would come up.

What unreasonable search did the LEOs conduct?

gigag04 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Those who approved it should be fired. If no one approved it then the troopers who actually did it should be fired. If they had permission they should be suspended as "just following orders" is not an excuse, so "hey the boss said I could" doesn't cut it either.

Seems fair. I think they should burn down their homes too and take away their kids so that those vile offenders can't taint the next generation.

It is rather concerning that people believe everything they read in the liberal media. One would think people would want factual information vs jumping on the bandwagon without proof of any wrong doing. Just a thought, but the same liberal media thinks Obama is the greatest thing to happen to the US. Does that mean we are surrounded by Obama supporters?

Its interesting that those defending police curb stomping the Bill of Rights for a private employer are then calling others who disagree Obama supporters. Does that mean Obama haters hate the Constitution?

Which of the 1st 10 amendments do you feel was "curb stomped" by the LEOs?

4th Amendment.

See above for same question.

gigag04 wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

gigag04 wrote: Which of the 1st 10 amendments do you feel was "curb stomped" by the LEOs?

#4. Pretty obvious to most people.

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.

Anygunanywhere

I was hoping 4 would come up.

What unreasonable search did the LEOs conduct?

They were forced to stop without any standard of cause BUT FOR A PRIVATE PURPOSE.

It was actually for a federal government purpose of invading one's privacy. It was a private contractor that was hired to do the dirty work and they hired the cop to funnel them subjects under false pretenses.

I see it a little differently.....I'd argue that the violations were of the 6th and 9th amendments:

6th

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 offence 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

Being funneled into a parking lot under the color of authority deprives me of my liberty; specifically in this case, my liberty to travel freely, and not be stopped or detained when I have not violated the law. I think we could also make the argument that such detention has a cost to us, in some specific cases, a direct cost (e.g. having to pay for being late to an appointment, or having to waste time waiting longer because you were stopped and made late), which was imposed without due process or compensation.

9th

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I have a right to go where I want when I want if I am not violating the law. I have the right to make such travel unimpeded by authority. I don't have to answer to any authority when I have not violated any law. All the ways the police violated the right of people, essentially, to be left alone, has already been described in detail by others posting and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

cb1000rider wrote: Think an "off duty" LEO can't pull you over in his/her own unmarked car while wearing Magnum PI shorts and issue a citation? Think again. :-)

Only if he has the cool 'stache though...

(oh man now the theme song is in my head)

Wow we agree on something in this thread

gigag04 wrote:
What unreasonable search did the LEOs conduct?

By their involvement they are guilty of violating citizens 4th amendment rights. They used their badge of authority to coerce citizens to subject themselves to violations of their rights.

Anygunanywhere

gigag04 wrote: I was hoping 4 would come up.

I was following this thread hoping that the LEOs in this forum would unanimously condemn the actions of the LEOs in the story.

Anygunanywhere

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Those who approved it should be fired. If no one approved it then the troopers who actually did it should be fired. If they had permission they should be suspended as "just following orders" is not an excuse, so "hey the boss said I could" doesn't cut it either.

Seems fair. I think they should burn down their homes too and take away their kids so that those vile offenders can't taint the next generation.

It is rather concerning that people believe everything they read in the liberal media. One would think people would want factual information vs jumping on the bandwagon without proof of any wrong doing. Just a thought, but the same liberal media thinks Obama is the greatest thing to happen to the US. Does that mean we are surrounded by Obama supporters?

Its interesting that those defending police curb stomping the Bill of Rights for a private employer are then calling others who disagree Obama supporters. Does that mean Obama haters hate the Constitution?

The entire point of that post was to get some peoples attention about the liberal media and not believing everything they post w/o facts, but unfortunately that isn't sinking in. This is actually rather concerning that some are so gullible to believe everything the media spins as the truth. No where did I defend anything, in fact there is nothing to defend because there is no proof of any wrong doing in that article. The PD will look into it and nobody has answered whether or not the federal agency in question (not a private agency) has the authority do block a roadway (if that was done) and do this. That would answer a lot whether something was wrong or right. You keep missing that and call for firings, now talk about stomping on the Bill of Rights, wow .

anygunanywhere wrote:

gigag04 wrote: I was hoping 4 would come up.

I was following this thread hoping that the LEOs in this forum would unanimously condemn the actions of the LEOs in the story.

Anygunanywhere

I think I have been pretty clear lets see facts of wrong doing. I won't condemn somebody based on a news article nor jump on the bandwagon without proof.

You should actually be glad we call for facts. It would be a whole lot easier at work to make decisions based on limited information vs. doing a complete investigation to uncover the truth. When I worked child abuse you can be sure all those accused of some pretty heinous crimes were very thankful I am meticulous when it comes to wanting to know factual information vs hearsay. (A news story is hearsay.) In many instances I cleared people that otherwise would have been charged with a crime.