Politics And Current Events

grunthy
Posts: 18239
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:29 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby grunthy » Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:00 pm

Though once I saw a 1.9% increase I raise my TSP by 1 percent.

DigitalGypsy66
Posts: 19681
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:33 pm
Location: Iodine State

Politics And Current Events

Postby DigitalGypsy66 » Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:09 pm

Bill Weld will primary Trump: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... be20d4daed

Also,
Image

MrKennethTKangaroo
Posts: 12408
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 3:50 pm

Politics And Current Events

Postby MrKennethTKangaroo » Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:17 pm

I read about this bill weld guy and he seems crazy like a fox

DigitalGypsy66
Posts: 19681
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:33 pm
Location: Iodine State

Politics And Current Events

Postby DigitalGypsy66 » Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:22 pm

Yeah, he's a CEO of a marijuana company. Former governor of Massachusetts and a Deadhead.

I'll need to dig into his platform a bit, but he's certainly more compelling than most of the Democratic field right now.

Governors are easier to elect than members of Congress, because they don't have any legislative skeletons in their closet(s). In fact Obama was the first US Senator elected since John Kennedy, mainly for that reason. Lots of Governors and VPs with legislative backgrounds that became POTUS because of succession (Truman, LBJ, Ford). Pretty interesting.

Shyster
Posts: 13099
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Politics And Current Events

Postby Shyster » Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:47 pm

http://reason.com/blog/2019/02/04/houst ... eled-durin

This is an awful story. The no knock warrant stuff is reckless.
According to Acevedo, the officers announced themselves while "simultaneously breaching the front door," which was immediately followed by shotgun "rounds" that killed the dog. Tuttle responded by shooting the shotgun-wielding officer with a revolver. When the officer slumped onto a sofa, Rhogena Nicholas, Tuttle's wife, reportedly tried to disarm him, at which point one or more of the other cops shot and killed her. Tuttle returned fire with his revolver and was killed as well.
If someone stormed through my door and blasted my dog away with a shotgun, you bet your ass I'm opening fire. Cops acting with impunity.

This story in Houston is doing downhill fast. The narcotics officer who obtained the warrant for the raid by swearing out that an affidavit that one of his confidential informants made a controlled heroin buy at the house on Jan. 27 gave two different informants' names in two different interviews. But when the investigators talked to those two informants, they both denied they ever bought drugs from that house. So the investigators talked to every informant used by that police officer, and everyone denied ever making any drug buys at that house and denied ever buying drugs from Nicholas or Tuttle, period.

This whole thing stinks so bad, it seems to go beyond mere incompetence. It makes one wonder whether the narcotics officer who swore out the affidavit had some beef with the victims (and it's getting clear they are victims) and did this on purpose.

Affidavit: Police can't find informant used to justify deadly Pecan Park drug raid
https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texa ... 620120.php

HPD WARRANT: Informant didn't buy drugs from suspects killed in police shootout
https://abc13.com/warrant-informant-did ... d/5140341/

Freddy Rumsen
Posts: 35313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry

Politics And Current Events

Postby Freddy Rumsen » Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:10 pm

That kind of thing should carry a death penalty minimum.

shafnutz05
Posts: 50381
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:27 pm
Location: A moron or a fascist...but not both.

Politics And Current Events

Postby shafnutz05 » Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:10 pm

Democrat Senator Kirsten Gillibrand on removing existing border barriers: “I could support it”
https://t.co/t0mm6reOfm

So now that Beto started this are all the Dem candidates going to support taking down the existing walls?
This is insanity. There's going hard Left, and then there is just utter insanity. Are they just being completely open about their desire for open borders now?

Willie Kool
Posts: 9328
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:28 pm
Location: undisclosed

Politics And Current Events

Postby Willie Kool » Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:18 pm

No-knock warrants (and civil asset forfeiture) are SO obviously an unconstitutional overreach.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy are fully to blame...

Willie Kool
Posts: 9328
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:28 pm
Location: undisclosed

Politics And Current Events

Postby Willie Kool » Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:23 pm

Yinz just keep voting R and celebrating these fine conservative (hah) judges...

Freddy Rumsen
Posts: 35313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry

Politics And Current Events

Postby Freddy Rumsen » Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:39 pm

Thankfully the Democrat congressional supermajority took care of that in 2009.

Shyster
Posts: 13099
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Politics And Current Events

Postby Shyster » Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:44 pm

Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy are fully to blame...
How so?

Willie Kool
Posts: 9328
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:28 pm
Location: undisclosed

Politics And Current Events

Postby Willie Kool » Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:17 pm

Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy are fully to blame...
How so?
Hudson v. Michigan

Shyster
Posts: 13099
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Politics And Current Events

Postby Shyster » Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:26 pm

Hudson v. Michigan
Hudson v. Michigan held that a violation of the "knock and announce" principle did not mean that suppression was necessary. But the the ability of police to engage in no-knock raids in the first place came from earlier cases such as Wilson v. Arkansas and Richards v. Wisconsin, which were both unanimous decisions. Richards in particular held that police officers did not have to knock and announce if it would be dangerous, futile, or would "inhibit the effective investigation of the crime." That opinion was written by the super-conservative Justice Stevens and joined by such super conservatives as Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.

I'm certainly not a supporter of no-knock warrants, but to place the blame for their existence solely at the feet of conservative judges is not correct. The lefties on the Court fully signed off on their creation.

Willie Kool
Posts: 9328
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:28 pm
Location: undisclosed

Politics And Current Events

Postby Willie Kool » Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:41 pm

Richards was a special circumstance that wasn't meant to set precedent. Richards saw uniformed police outside his open door before the forced entry, making it not really a no-knock. By slamming the door, he also visibly reacted in a way that gave them reasonable suspicion that he would destroy evidence. Given the unique facts of the case, I agree that a Fourth Amendment violation did not occur.

Shyster
Posts: 13099
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Politics And Current Events

Postby Shyster » Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:55 pm

True, but the holding was not limited to the facts of that particular case.

Willie Kool
Posts: 9328
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:28 pm
Location: undisclosed

Politics And Current Events

Postby Willie Kool » Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:56 pm

These actual circumstances--petitioner's apparent recognition of the officers combined with the easily disposable nature of the drugs--justified the officers' ultimate decision to enter without first announcing their presence and authority.

Accordingly, although we reject the blanket exception to the knock and announce requirement for felony drug investigations, the judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Shyster
Posts: 13099
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Politics And Current Events

Postby Shyster » Fri Feb 15, 2019 8:12 pm

That is the application of the announced holding to the facts of the case. It is not a limitation of the holding to only those facts.

You do remember I'm an appellate-litigation specialist, right?

Willie Kool
Posts: 9328
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:28 pm
Location: undisclosed

Politics And Current Events

Postby Willie Kool » Fri Feb 15, 2019 8:20 pm

One who apparently can't, or at least doesn't want to, see the forest for the trees...

Willie Kool
Posts: 9328
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:28 pm
Location: undisclosed

Politics And Current Events

Postby Willie Kool » Fri Feb 15, 2019 8:44 pm

Just read Breyer's dissent in Hudson:
Today’s opinion
holds that evidence seized from a home following a violation of this requirement need not be suppressed
As a result, the Court destroys the strongest legal incentive to comply with the Constitution’s knock-and-announce
requirement. And the Court does so without significant
support in precedent. At least I can find no such support
in the many Fourth Amendment cases the Court has
decided in the near century since it first set forth the
exclusionary principle in Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S.
383 (1914).
Today’s opinion is thus doubly troubling. It represents a
significant departure from the Court’s precedents. And it
weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of
the Constitution’s knock-and-announce protection.

tifosi77
Posts: 51514
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Politics And Current Events

Postby tifosi77 » Fri Feb 15, 2019 8:48 pm

This whole thing stinks so bad, it seems to go beyond mere incompetence. It makes one wonder whether the narcotics officer who swore out the affidavit had some beef with the victims (and it's getting clear they are victims) and did this on purpose.
I mean, what other benign explanation could there be for this conduct? There always the possibility that the informants are cahooting to get the cop in trouble, but it's probably not very likely they know one and other are snitches.

Freddy Rumsen
Posts: 35313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry

Politics And Current Events

Postby Freddy Rumsen » Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:02 pm

Does WK have a relative in legal circles?

Willie Kool
Posts: 9328
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:28 pm
Location: undisclosed

Politics And Current Events

Postby Willie Kool » Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:08 pm

:lol:

Willie Kool
Posts: 9328
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:28 pm
Location: undisclosed

Politics And Current Events

Postby Willie Kool » Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:23 pm

This whole thing stinks so bad, it seems to go beyond mere incompetence. It makes one wonder whether the narcotics officer who swore out the affidavit had some beef with the victims (and it's getting clear they are victims) and did this on purpose.
I mean, what other benign explanation could there be for this conduct? There always the possibility that the informants are cahooting to get the cop in trouble, but it's probably not very likely they know one and other are snitches.
No cahoots necessary. The sworn affidavit said ONE of his confidential informants. He gave two different names in two different subsequent interviews. They then interviewed both of them and, when they denied it, all his informants.

tifosi77
Posts: 51514
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Politics And Current Events

Postby tifosi77 » Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:33 pm

Sentencing guidelines for Manafort recommend 235 - 293 months (19.5 - 24.5 years) in prison (plus up to five years of supervised release), and a fine range between $50,000 and $24.3 million, $24.8 million in restitution, and forfeiture of $4.4 million in assets. Mueller did not make a recommendation, other than to state they agree with the guidelines.

And he's facing sentencing in another matter yet. This is just one set of convictions.

And remember, this sort of all started because he owed a Russian oligarch $19 million.

Shyster
Posts: 13099
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Politics And Current Events

Postby Shyster » Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:34 pm

Just read Breyer's dissent in Hudson:

Again, the Court already ruled unanimously in Richards (in an opinion that Breyer joined) that police don't have to bother knocking at all on the basis that knocking would be dangerous, futile, or would inhibit their investigation, such as through the destruction of evidence. In fact, that was already the law even before Richards.

Hudson addressed the question of what happens when the police get a regular warrant (that is, one that does not authorize no-knock entry) and in fact do not knock and announce before entry. The Court ruled 5-4 that suppression was not necessary. But no-knock warrants were already a thing long before that case.

You said:
No-knock warrants (and civil asset forfeiture) are SO obviously an unconstitutional overreach.
Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy are fully to blame...

Not accurate. Hudson did not create no-knock warrants. The Hudson majority opinion joined by those judges did not create no-knock warrants. They already existed. If you object to the notion that police officers can get warrants that specifically authorize them to barge in without knocking and announcing themselves, that notion predated Hudson by many years.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Beveridge and 126 guests