Horrible case law for horrible people

[AZRedhawk44]

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/01/15/north-dakota-man-sentenced-to-jail-in-controversial-drone-arrest-case

I'm tired of horrible precedents being put in place that are so detrimental to liberty, because of the actions of scum sucking dirtbags.  Police using DHS drones in this case.

I also object to the notion that you can "terrorize police" when you're remaining on your own private property and objecting to your arrest.  Dude is a cattle thief to be sure, and was resisting arrest to be sure, and obstructing the service of a warrant to be sure.

He was NOT "terrorizing police."   They're an effing SWAT team.  Are they now going to throw "terrorizing police" at anyone that resists arrest while holed up at home?


This has been going on at least since Miller, probably earlier.

[tokugawa]

And the jury acquitted him on the original theft charges ? WTF?  I am sick of the word "terrorize" -they apply that to everything now. It must be the standard way to enhance charges against someone.

OK- he resisted arrest-we have laws for that, eh?
or he assaulted a cop-we have laws for that too.
As a matter of fact, I bet the prosecutor could have found 10 different legitimate laws to apply to this guy-
 So why the "terrorize" bullpucky? Maybe it carries a heavier penalty because he made someone feel bad or scared them?

"terror" is a thought crime.

What, exactly, would be the criteria for "terrorizing" someone,anyway?
 Is not "terror" a feeling or emotion, experienced differently by all?   
Is it not, then, based ENTIRELY on the emotional state of the "victim", rather than on the defendants actions?
If a suburban housewife sees an individual open carrying and is afraid of guns, is she being "terrorized"?
But a soldier, in the exact same scenario, is not being "terrorized"?
Or reverse it- the soldier, riding in his hummer, is in a state of "terror" or great fear, as his buddies have been blown to pieces doing this. But the housewife, having no idea of the danger, is complacent. 
"Terror", is entirely a state of mind- to find another guilty of YOUR state of mind is obscene.

This is a example of a law and a punishment, that is completely divorced from the actions of the accused, and completely  dependent on the mental state of the "victim".

 It seems like a new and novel approach to thought crime- instead of the thought crime being something the accused did, the thought crime now is created by the victim, and applied to the accused.

This is an Orwellian dystopia.  Every trace of reason is gone.

[Nick1911]

Question: Under what circumstances can .gov fly a drone over my private property?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

you fellers not familiar with the case?  not read what the fool himself said?

[AZRedhawk44]

Question: Under what circumstances can .gov fly a drone over my private property?

Pretty much any, just like they can fly the local PD helicopter, or Southwest Airlines can overfly you, or air force jets can.

The two parts I specifically object to:

1. "Terrorizing police."  'Nuff said.
2. Using a drone to assist a SWAT apprehension is a slippery slope.  If the local PD wants to use a quadricopter at 2500ft elevation to snoop that's one thing, but we're talking about a Predator.  "It was unarmed."  Sure.  Whatever.  Then why do you have a Predator at all, rather than something that is an unarmed asset?  Flight time is expensive, ounces count against dwell time, and weapons racks have weight, even when empty.  If the homeowner had gotten the upper hand on the SWAT team, I think this drone might not have been as "unarmed" as it is made out to be.  Drones + SWAT = slippery slope to air-delivered hellfire missiles for law enforcement.

[AZRedhawk44]

you fellers not familiar with the case?  not read what the fool himself said?

I'm assuming you're already coming to defend the thin blue line somehow and demean the defendant.  Correct?

If so, I've already demeaned the defendant in the title of the thread and in the body of the OP.  I'm pointing out the flaw in our legal/precedent system, inherent at least since Miller @ SCOTUS and probably evidenced much earlier and I'm not aware of it, of terrible precedent being set in court during the failed defense of morally repugnant people, which is then used by the State as a mechanism to attack legal rights of the rest of us.

Miller was a prohibition still sting.  The F-troop found no still, so they used the sawed-off shotgun in Miller's truck as a bullsh!t charge.  Miller was a toothless hillbilly moonshining bootlegger, not a hero of the 2A.  Miller was all about alcohol prohibition, and we end up getting a SCOTUS decision that has massive implications for a constitutional right out of it.  It was bullsh!t.

This is the same.  It's about 6 stupid cows, and a rancher that says hell-damn-no to letting John Law on his property.  Local sheriff should have been able to resolve this with a half hour of diplomacy.  Instead we get a District Court decision on the matter of law enforcement integration of Predator drones into SWAT teams.  The court decision makes no specification as to the suitability of a drone based on its armed/unarmed status.  Just says "go for it."

[tokugawa]

you fellers not familiar with the case?  not read what the fool himself said?

 Be specific. so we at least know what you are talking about.  This discussion is not about
 A- stealing cows.
 B- resisting arrest
 
 but applying the terminology "terrorist" to a normal, run of the mill , everyday criminal case.

 And yes, I think using drones and swat will eventually lead to hellfire missiles through the bedroom door- if the present trend continues.   Officer safety and all that.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

So az is a yes? This dimwit announced hecwas gonna "take care of" any cops that showed up and had his sons backing him. Diplomacy had been rejected. The kids are as stupid as dad. Heck getting itvresolved without anyone dead was a ling shot. Fortunately he was more mouth than action. So lets recap. They used the drone to spot mumbnuts and that helped enable a bloodless resolution. If they flew over in a planecwould that be better? Why? Are the/you sovreigns claiming the airspace over your nations? How high? The airline's pay tribute?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

[Tallpine]

What, exactly, would be the criteria for "terrorizing" someone,anyway?

Surrounding their house with SWAT and flying drones over the house.   

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

how about armed sons refusing to allow cops to retrieve cattle?
stupid is genetic
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073248/Local-cops-used-Predator-drone-arrest-North-Dakota-farm-family-stealing-6-cows.html

heck the cops coulda shot those boys  they don't  defuse it safely and still the usual suspects are all butthurt

[grampster]

I think the "terror" is because the police are "terrorized".  Here is a case.  A couple days ago, in Grand Rapids a police officer shot a kid  who was brandishing a toy gun.  (the little red tip was removed from a toy gun)  According to the news report, after the officer shot him, he and his partner ran into the bathroom and hid.  Then they exited the house through the bathroom window.  Then they yelled at the kid from outside the house to surrender.

[AZRedhawk44]

CSD, please read posts #4 and #5 for full, 100% comprehension.

[RevDisk]

heck the cops coulda shot those boys  they don't  defuse it safely and still the usual suspects are all butthurt

Dude, that's not fair. You'd argue the cops coulda tazered, shot and cavity searched (in that order) those boys if they were all naked, quadriplegic vegetables that haven't moved in years.

 
 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Pretty much any, just like they can fly the local PD helicopter, or Southwest Airlines can overfly you, or air force jets can.

The two parts I specifically object to:

1. "Terrorizing police."  'Nuff said.
2. Using a drone to assist a SWAT apprehension is a slippery slope.  If the local PD wants to use a quadricopter at 2500ft elevation to snoop that's one thing, but we're talking about a Predator.  "It was unarmed."  Sure.  Whatever.  Then why do you have a Predator at all, rather than something that is an unarmed asset?  Flight time is expensive, ounces count against dwell time, and weapons racks have weight, even when empty.  If the homeowner had gotten the upper hand on the SWAT team, I think this drone might not have been as "unarmed" as it is made out to be.  Drones + SWAT = slippery slope to air-delivered hellfire missiles for law enforcement.

the cops didn't have a predator  they borrowed one from customs/border patrol

do the bp drones have weapons racks?
http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/border_security/am/operations/oam_vessels/aircraft/uas/predator_b.ctt/predator_b.pdf

if they had charged the guys with resisting or brandishing would that lower your fear level?  you think that semantics are critical? i think scaring an armed cop into leaving it might be the right charge

[AZRedhawk44]

I don't give a fudge about the cops at all.

I care about the court decision.  Ignore the cops.  Stop thinking in shades of blue.

We now have a US District Court ruling on "terrorizing police" and on the integration of DHS Predator resources into local law enforcement SWAT teams.

That is what I'm butthurt over.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Dude, that's not fair. You'd argue the cops coulda tazered, shot and cavity searched (in that order) those boys if they were all naked, quadriplegic vegetables that haven't moved in years.

 
 

you mean as opposed to armed blocking the cops from recovering stolen property?   i think dad nearly turned his boys into the next sammy weaver. apparently their contingency plans could use some work

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I don't give a fudge about the cops at all.

I care about the court decision.  Ignore the cops.  Stop thinking in shades of blue.

We now have a US District Court ruling on "terrorizing police" and on the integration of DHS Predator resources into local law enforcement SWAT teams.

That is what I'm butthurt over.

you seem to imagine is a new charge? or semantics are extra important to you?



and would you be as concerned if they flew a chopper with a pilot and observer?  or a cessna?  what makes the drone your "shoulder thingy that goes up"?

[tokugawa]

CASD  said--

  "you think that semantics are critical? "

 Damn straight I do, WHEN THE LANGUAGE AND LAW ARE DIRECTLY LINKED.  They are using the "terrorism" catch-all to escalate the charges. It is not just a convenient turn of phrase.

  Incidentally, your question is almost verbatim of what Len Horiuchi said to an interviewer after shooting Vickie Weaver, in response to a question about ROE  - I heard it in real time, it played once-and only once.  "That's just semantics".

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

what word(s) would you use to describe several armed boys blocking a cop from recovering stolen property?  one thats politically correct for your politics.
the boys plead guilty to menacing which is a misdemeanor.  their using weapons lead to the terrorizing charge which was a 5 year max felony. the difference is in line with the upgrade on gets in most crimes where you upgrade with a weapon.  if they used the word "scaring? spooking"?  does the word terror bring visions of gitmo fema camps and trains?

[tokugawa]

What language would have been used 30 years ago?  Would they just have said, oh, we don't have a law on the books to charge these people, let's just let them go?  I don't think so-


 My point, which apparently I am describing so poorly as to be gibberish, is that the Word "terror" has been successfully implemented as a NEW felony charge in a host of different jurisdictions, and applied to crimes ,which for 200 years we have found perfectly acceptable existing charges under which to prosecute people, strictly as a way to provide more severe punishments.

 It has become a fad of the day felony to attach to enhance sentencing . Very similar to "hate crime" enhanced sentences.
 It is a thought crime, dependent on assuming the accused frame of mind.

 

 

[AZRedhawk44]

What language would have been used 30 years ago?  Would they just have said, oh, we don't have a law on the books to charge these people, let's just let them go?  I don't think so-


 My point, which apparently I am describing so poorly as to be gibberish, is that the Word "terror" has been successfully implemented as a NEW felony charge in a host of different jurisdictions, and applied to crimes ,which for 200 years we have found perfectly acceptable existing charges under which to prosecute people, strictly as a way to provide more severe punishments.

 It has become a fad of the day felony to attach to enhance sentencing . Very similar to "hate crime" enhanced sentences.
 It is a thought crime, dependent on assuming the accused frame of mind.

 

Exact same foundational doctrine as any of the Jim Crow laws which have now become stand-alone felonies themselves 100 years later.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

You gentlmen chose 30vyears for a reason? Cause that law has been on the books longer than that. Found a case from 72 so far

Oh
And that charge is used often usually its not the cops that are the victims though. It takes real special folks to do that.

Does the charge predating 9/11 change anything? Heck law predates you

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

[Scout26]

tokugawa & AZRedhawk,

I have a brick wall in my living room. 

I would suggest that you'll get further arguing with it, then with C&SD.

 

[zahc]

Part of the problem is the notion of 'precedent'. It's a judicial cop-out.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Part of the problem is the notion of 'precedent'. It's a judicial cop-out.

why is a drone more objectionable than a manned plane or chopper
cheaper?  safer?