↓ Archives ↓

Posts Tagged → police

US Supreme Court decides straight forward case with weird outcomes

Fernandez v. California was decided yesterday by the US Supreme Court.  Everything about it is just…weird.

In a holding that is enraging advocates of private property rights, limited government, and citizen privacy, the Court’s conservatives were joined by two liberals to allow the police to enter a private home without a warrant, even if one resident says they cannot enter, because another resident said they could enter.

In other words, if the police get a resident of a home to grant permission to enter that home for the purpose of searching for something illegal, which the police now do not have to specify in writing, the police may enter.  What they are looking for could be unknown, or undocumented.  Maybe they are on a fishing expedition, just looking for anything they could use against the person who said they did not want the police to enter.  It seems like planting evidence would be a lot easier, now.  In any event, your home is no longer your castle, if a pissed off teenager inside decides to take out their misplaced teenage aggression against their loving parents.

Seems like a recipe for disaster.

Justice Ginsburg wrote a dissent, noting the obvious erosion in Fourth Amendment rights against illegal searches and seizures that result from holdings like this.  Ginsburg is the court’s most liberal member, an extremist who has spoken out against the US Constitution she is sworn to uphold, and an authoritarian statist who otherwise just loves, loves, loves state power over citizens.

And here’s the really weird stuff: The facts involve “illegal guns,” which in California is anything down to and including a Daisy BB gun, and documented domestic violence.

The person blocking the police from entering the home to search it was the Mr. Wife-Beating Fernandez, a scumbag who held his cringing wife prisoner under brutal circumstances.  After he was momentarily out of the picture and not a direct threat, she allowed the police to search the house, where they found the illegal guns (let’s be clear – California is on the path to making all gun ownership illegal, except by the police, which is otherwise known as a police state, a separate topic).

Thus did Mr. Macho Wife Beater get into even more and more serious trouble with the legal system, and thus did he subsequently attempt to suppress the evidence the police found, which really put him away behind bars for a while.

Ginsburg and other liberals typically trumpet the rights of domestic abuse victims, but here they are clearly ranking them beneath the rights of the gun-owning wife beater.  Weird.

Conservatives like Alito typically champion the rights of gun owners and are split 50/50 on privacy rights.  But here they are so obviously opening up the flood gates of potential abuse by police.  No warrant?  No documentation for probable cause? Husbands and wives typically cannot testify against each other, but here they are now allowed to defy one another in the family ‘castle’ so the state apparatus may enter at will.

Seems like a pretty huge detonation of American citizens’ privacy rights.  Weird.

 

Westgate Mall, Kenya….a “gun free zone”

Islamic activists attacked the Westgate Mall this week, challenging the oddly dressed and poorly equipped Kenyan police and military to take time off from beating civilians and assert armed force against armed forces.

By all accounts the attack and counter attack were a horrible mess. The Muslims racked up a dandy accounting, murdering about 65 women, children, and old men in cold blood, often challenging their victims to recite parts of the Koran to prove that they were Muslims, and thereby deserving of life.

One thing is for sure, those “gun free zones” and all the disarmed gentle people in them seem to attract a lot of crazies with guns. Westgate is the most recent, but malls, movie theatres, and schools are all similar in their distaste for legally armed civilians. Their taste for illegally armed lunatics is proving to be quite high.

Hopefully at some point, this “If I can’t see it, it doesn’t exist” attitude driving the gun-free zone policy will evolve into some expression of self-preservation, which means having the ability to meet force with force.

Certain people have hero complexes. Among them are police officers who want to disarm civilians and maintain militarily armed “rapid response” teams. Problem is, when seconds count, these rapid response guys are at best minutes away. Consider also that countries where only the police have effective guns are called police states.

Want to see my rapid response team? It’s right here. I’m looking at it. It’s my trigger finger, and I would stake my life on it, and yours, long before I’d expect the cops to show up after the shooting started.

You’ve got your own rapid response team, too. Start exercising it, it might come in handy. And if it does, you can enjoy being a hero while the hero-wannabes are just starting to show up.

“Obama Cop” Tom Hyers Has Some Explaining to Do

Nick-named the “Obama Cop” because of his recent role in promoting gun control with US VP Joe Biden, York County, Springettsbury Township police chief Tom Hyers now has some big-time explaining to do.

I met Chief Hyers when we debated gun control at the WITF studio last month. Hyers was quick to promote gun control, quick to dismiss armed citizens and teachers, and quick to draw imaginary images of heroic rapid response police who bust down doors and shoot bad guys.

Strangely, Chief Hyers called my observation that, when seconds count the police are only minutes away, a “smoke screen.” It’s no smoke screen; it is a fact that the laws of physics cannot overcome. After our debate, we spent some time off camera chatting, getting to know one another, and exchanging views on gun control and culture.

Now, Chief Hyers has police officers on his force accused of using wildly excessive force. One of the officers is accused in at least two different incidents. The incidents are all on camera, and they explicitly show men in uniform out of control, sadistically hurting the defenseless citizens they are sworn to protect.

My own takeaway from this is that policemen like Hyers are super into their jobs, and we both support them and cast a wary eye. On the one hand, we admire men and women who put their lives on the line to bring order to our society, who confront dangerous humans and risk their health to do a job. On the other hand, Hyers believes too much in the power of police. He practically worships it, to the point of dismissing the effectiveness of armed citizens, a silly thing to do. When I mentioned during our debate that concealed carry holders are extremely safe and have been observed to have a lower accident rate than uniformed police, Hyers bristled and demanded to know where such ‘outrageous claims’ came from.

No wonder Chief Hyers loves gun control so much. He also knowingly employs cops who beat the heck out of innocent citizens and face no internal corrective action. Police deserve our respect, and their power deserves watchfulness. Chief Hyers is very much the face of gun control. He is a man to watch, all right…watch out, America!

Once Every Blue Moon I Agree With the ACLU

Blurring the lines between policing and soldiering is an increasing problem best witnessed by YouTube videos showing police officers needlessly Tasering and beating innocent civilians. Now the ACLU is beginning to dig into the transmittal of huge amounts of military hardware from the Department of Homeland Security, of all places, to local police departments around the nation.

Read more here: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/03/07/a-c-l-u-has-concerns-over-military-weapons-used-by-local-police/

MY Question is this: Why and how is the US Dept. of Homeland Security dealing in military weapons and gear? America has always maintained a strong wall between the military and the police. That is clearly being dissolved. Is the DHS becoming the Big Government Big Brother we worry about? Liberty, folks, America is all about individual liberty, and these sorts of policies corrode, erode, and undermine individual liberty one small step at a time. Push back. Elect citizens to office who disagree with these sorts of policies and who will work hard to eliminate them and make them illegal.

State Representative Calls Police Twice Over Inquisitive Citizen Opposing Gun Vote

By Josh First
March 7, 2013

Just over a week ago, newly minted New York State Representative Didi Barrett (NY-106th) twice called police in a thinly veiled attempt to have an inquisitive citizen intimidated by Red Hook police for exercising his Constitutional right to petition the government. Nope, this is not made up, folks; it is real and it is real-time. It illustrates that the gun control debate is not about guns. It is not even about crime. It is about controlling citizens; that is its purpose and the goal of its proponents. When the police show up at your door or pull you over because someone in an official position said something about you, anything could happen.

Beginning in early January and extending into late February, Chris Stehling, a plumber from Red Hook, NY, visited Barrett’s local office several times to explain his opposition to her position on New York’s anti-gun SAFE Act, and then her recent vote in support of that law. This new law is so restrictive that even most on-duty police officers are non-compliant and potential felons. The heavily rushed and highly defective law must now be “fixed,” and it is already going through a new amendment process, facts that in Stehling’s view indicated a flawed legislative process begging a few more changes.

Stehling tells me that he was respectful and professional when he first visited Barrett’s office, requesting a meeting with her. Asked by staff what the subject was that he wished to discuss, Stehling explained his opposition to his state representative’s vote for the flawed law. Barrett was unavailable, he was told, and “Don’t call us, we will call you” was their parting response.

Several days after he left, a town detective, Tom D’Amicantonio, knocked on Stehling’s door, saying that Barrett had called the police because her office “had concerns” about him.

“I asked Tom ‘What concerns?’, says Stehling, who is a steady, jovial, and articulate guy on the phone, and on a friendly first-name basis with the small-town local police.

After a forty-minute “amicable” conversation, and taking a statement from Stehling, who wanted to see his representative face-to-face, the detective departed, and left Stehling with a feeling of now being victimized twice by Representative Barrett: Once by her careless vote for the poorly written law, and now by her attempt to persecute and intimidate him for daring to ask her about it.

Stehling called a friend, and they returned to Barrett’s office the next morning, calmly seeking both to schedule a meeting and requesting an explanation about why the detective had been called. In addition, Stehling had a friend on the phone who could hear the conversation in the office. Apparently while they were talking to a staffer, someone else in the office was on the phone, calling the police again, because when Stehling returned to his car outside and began to drive away, the town’s police sergeant, Patrick Hildenbrand, pulled him over.

“The sergeant came over to my truck, and he asked me what was going on with Representative Barrett, and we explained our experiences visiting her office, including my First Amendment right to talk to my elected officials,” says Stehling.

After talking with Stehling and taking statements from both of his friends, Sergeant Hildenbrand reportedly later called Barrett’s office, explaining that Stehling was well within his Constitutional rights to petition his elected officials, to visit their offices, and request a meeting with his representative. Is that not the role of an elected official in a representative democracy, after all? The US Constitution’s First Amendment gives citizens the right to petition their government, and to speak freely.

Eventually Stehling was granted a meeting with NY Representative Barrett at her distant Albany office, which he conveniently visited after a pro-Constitutional rights rally at the NY state capitol that same day.

“She was dismissive about our concerns, even when we presented the fact that the new law criminalizes most on-duty police officers [because of their higher capacity guns] and it punishes law-abiding citizens but not criminals,” says Stehling.

Three weeks ago I debated Shira Goodman of CeaseFirePA (http://video.witf.org/video/2335658815), a gun prohibitionist group, on a WITF live call-in TV show. Several times during the debate Shira earnestly exclaimed her avid support for Second Amendment rights, which she is working overtime to destroy. It is now a common tactic to proclaim support for something you obviously despise and undermine. And thus America spawns people like Representative Didi Barrett, the Cuomo-endorsed New York State “Assemblyperson” who believes in getting elected to office, but not in being accountable to the citizens whose consent places her there; in fact, she evidently believes in using the police to intimidate or jail her political opponents.

Gun rights advocates have long worried that their opponents were seeking domination and control of the citizenry, and not control of crime. Representative Didi Barrett’s actions just showed us that concern is valid and true. But Didi Barrett tilted her hand too soon, though, because this kind of heavy-handed response from government should be more common only after Americans have been disarmed, and not before. Those citizens on the fence about this issue can now make an even more informed choice about which way to vote. Vote for freedom, folks, not for the un-American abuse of power that motivates people like Didi Barrett.

Listen to Chris Stehling’s other interview, on Sheryl Thomas’s radio program, at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sherylthomas/2013/02/28/ny-gun-owner-harassed-by-assemblywomans-office

Stay involved in the conversation at www.joshfirst.com and on our Facebook page