# Store owner sues Baton Rouge Police Department



## SGG (Nov 25, 2015)

The owner of the store in front of which Alton Sterling was shot is suing the police department and claiming they detained him and took property illegally

Shopkeeper sues Baton Rouge police in aftermath of black man's death | Reuters


----------



## Maol9 (Mar 20, 2015)

Hell I would sue them too on the face of it. 

Time will tell. If he was being a PITA and interfering with cops dealing with a bad situation gone to worse, he is lucky that was all that happened to him. Guess we'll have to wait for the tale of the tape..


----------



## baldman (Apr 5, 2016)

Everybody jump on the band wagon to sue . He's Arabic so he will win.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

I had to laugh, the article had the libtardacity to write, Sterling, The father of five, died...

And left out the phrase, "father of 5 bastards died because while suspected of committing a crime, he attacked two LEO who were better trained than he was "


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

those compact discs this scum bucket was selling in parking lot were undoubtedly either stolen or bootlegged ... wouldn't be confessing to knowing about that activity

this dumbazz store owner better hope his feet are clean and keeps his nose clean - he's got more to gain having the cops and city behind him in that freaking neighborhood ....


----------



## Maol9 (Mar 20, 2015)

Slippy said:


> I had to laugh, the article had the libtardacity to write, Sterling, The father of five, died...
> 
> And left out the phrase, "father of 5 bastards died because while suspected of committing a crime, he attacked two LEO who were better trained than he was "


"libtardacity" was just added to my dictionary. Gotta love a living language like english. Please note small 'E' LOL. I am an American after all, and not one with a short memory...


----------



## Maol9 (Mar 20, 2015)

Illini Warrior said:


> those compact discs this scum bucket was selling in parking lot were undoubtedly either stolen or bootlegged ... wouldn't be confessing to knowing about that activity
> 
> this dumbazz store owner better hope his feet are clean and keeps his nose clean - he's got more to gain having the cops and city behind him in that freaking neighborhood ....


CD's... is that code for Crack Dimes???


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Illini Warrior said:


> this dumbazz store owner better hope his feet are clean and keeps his nose clean - he's got more to gain having the cops and city behind him in that freaking neighborhood ....


WHAT, that guy was locked in the back of a police car for 4 hours.. and he was just a witness... I do not care if he is black white asian hindi or martian.. you do not lock up a witness for 4 hours..

I hope he gets awarded $10,000 per hour


----------



## SGG (Nov 25, 2015)

Maine-Marine said:


> WHAT, that guy was locked in the back of a police car for 4 hours.. and he was just a witness... I do not care if he is black white asian hindi or martian.. you do not lock up a witness for 4 hours..
> 
> I hope he gets awarded $10,000 per hour


Agreed if he really was kept against his will in the back of the cop car that long. And if they seized those surveillance videos before the court order warrant, it will make you wonder what really happened


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

Maol9 said:


> Hell I would sue them too on the face of it.
> 
> Time will tell. If he was being a PITA and interfering with cops dealing with a bad situation gone to worse, he is lucky that was all that happened to him. Guess we'll have to wait for the tale of the tape..


That's what I'm wondering as well. I also question the being held in the back of a cruiser for 4 hours, that should be documented in their CAD system/radio logs. I know they eventually got a court order for the video equipment, I"m wondering if they're considering the officers viewing it as a seizure. My natural inclination is they had enough probable cause to take it either way given the situation.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

So, footage is seized at the scene, a judge issues a warrant for that footage 5 HOURS LATER, and we're just supposed to ignore it because we think the shooting was justified?
This case is turning into a multi-faceted fuster cluck.
The witness should NOT have been detained for that long, and any evidence confiscated from third-parties BEFORE a warrant is issued would be inadmissible.
The clerk should expect a nice settlement.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> That's what I'm wondering as well. I also question the being held in the back of a cruiser for 4 hours, that should be documented in their CAD system/radio logs. I know they eventually got a court order for the video equipment, I"m wondering if they're considering the officers viewing it as a seizure. My natural inclination is they had enough probable cause to take it either way given the situation.


what probable cause is there for seizing a video tape ??? please reread the 4th

"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 searched."

I think the police should have the video but they need to get it correctly. Until an order was issued they had ZERO right to take the tapes or machines... or harddrives...


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Kauboy said:


> So, footage is seized at the scene, a judge issues a warrant for that footage 5 HOURS LATER, and we're just supposed to ignore it because we think the shooting was justified?
> This case is turning into a multi-faceted fuster cluck.
> The witness should NOT have been detained for that long, and any evidence confiscated from third-parties BEFORE a warrant is issued would be inadmissible.
> The clerk should expect a nice settlement.


right on brother, GREAT POINTS...

Action 1 (the shooting ) may have been ok
action 2,3, were Illegal ... false imprisonment, lack of due process, etc

I hope he gets a nice chunk $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Kauboy said:


> So, footage is seized at the scene, a judge issues a warrant for that footage 5 HOURS LATER, and we're just supposed to ignore it because we think the shooting was justified?
> This case is turning into a multi-faceted fuster cluck.
> The witness should NOT have been detained for that long, and any evidence confiscated from third-parties BEFORE a warrant is issued would be inadmissible.
> The clerk should expect a nice settlement.


I wish I could like this post 3 times


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

Maine-Marine said:


> what probable cause is there for seizing a video tape ??? please reread the 4th
> 
> "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 searched."
> 
> I think the police should have the video but they need to get it correctly. Until an order was issued they had ZERO right to take the tapes or machines... or harddrives...


*unreasonable searches and seizures*

I'd say that seizing video footage of an officer involved shooting isn't unreasonable, thats just me though although I suspect many others would agree.

Even at that we don't know how this really played out , all we know is what the dudes lawyer is saying and what the media is saying.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> *unreasonable searches and seizures*
> 
> I'd say that seizing video footage of an officer involved shooting isn't unreasonable, thats just me though although I suspect many others would agree.
> 
> Even at that we don't know how this really played out , all we know is what the dudes lawyer is saying and what the media is saying.


Well you are wrong and frankly what you THINK does not over rule the constitution and I feel bad for the educational system in the USA.

Do you think it is ok for police to enter your home in order to get a better position on a potential shooter?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> *unreasonable searches and seizures*
> 
> I'd say that seizing video footage of an officer involved shooting isn't unreasonable, thats just me though although I suspect many others would agree.
> 
> Even at that we don't know how this really played out , all we know is what the dudes lawyer is saying and what the media is saying.


Footage available for reasonable seizure would have been public cameras on the street owned by the city, or cameras operated by the officers or the suspect, and even any accomplices of the suspect.
However, collecting footage from a private business not owned by the suspect requires a WARRANT.

How far would you allow this to extend until it became unreasonable? Could officers entire private homes and collect their footage too, just because they have a security camera on their property? Being a business doesn't change the fact that it's PRIVATE PROPERTY.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

I just found this article while I was searching the subject of warrant less seizer of cellphones and recording devices.

US Supreme Court to police: To search a cell phone, 'get a warrant' (+video) - CSMonitor.com



> In a major affirmation of privacy in the digital age, the US Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that police must obtain a warrant before searching digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested





> "Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. "With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans the 'privacies of life,' " he said.





> "Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple - get a warrant."





> Roberts said the court recognized that there might be instances when the government faces exigent circumstances that required swift and decisive action. In those cases, the courts have recognized an exception to the warrant requirement, an exception that must be later justified case by case to a judge.


I'd say given this ruling the question would be would this be a situation of exigent circumstances which the warrant requirement didn't apply immediately but had to be justified to a judge later.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

Maine-Marine said:


> Well you are wrong and frankly what you THINK does not over rule the constitution and I feel bad for the educational system in the USA.
> 
> Do you think it is ok for police to enter your home in order to get a better position on a potential shooter?


Ok there is a big difference between your private residence and a place of business thats open to the public in regards to expectation of privacy. You are wrong in this regards sir and there are multiple court cases to back this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

I would say the entire store property would be a crime scene and the video was definitely evidence. They secured the evidence and then was granted a warrant to remove and retain that evidence.

Judge Judy my Grandmama......


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

They might have held him to prevent the turd from destroying the video recordings.

He also may have been doing some shady deals in the store, they want to keep him from destroying evidence.

It is a muzslime, can't trust the bastards. .


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

SOCOM42 said:


> They might have held him to prevent the turd from destroying the video recordings.
> 
> He also may have been doing some shady deals in the store, they want to keep him from destroying evidence.
> 
> It is a muzslime, can't trust the bastards. .


and by held they may have had him sitting on the curb for a couple hours while they where sorting things out then put him in the back of a car and took him to station for an interview. it seems like everybody wants to jump on the police whenever they're accused of violating peoples "rights". they're innocent until proven guilty as well!


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

I'll bet that most of what the ******* is saying is false.


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

He may could've just walked off but just didn't try. I know I've asked a cop before if I was free to leave, he said yes and I walked.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

Operator6 said:


> I would say the entire store property would be a crime scene and the video was definitely evidence. They secured the evidence and then was granted a warrant to remove and retain that evidence.
> 
> Judge Judy my Grandmama......


exactly correct .... and the store owner a material witness - he can not only be held but arrested and held when there's solid evidence he would flee beyond recall ....

nothing new here ....

his entire lawsuit is nothing but BS ....


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

SOCOM42 said:


> They might have held him to prevent the turd from destroying the video recordings.
> 
> He also may have been doing some shady deals in the store, they want to keep him from destroying evidence.
> 
> It is a muzslime, can't trust the bastards. .


happened in Chicago in a high profile case - Burger King manager - he didn't want any evidence against a black .... cops secure it and the DA works out the legal angles of evidence .... taking a DVR recording is nothing compared to what a DA can claim is evidence and part of a crime scene .... just like a search warrant ....

start screwing around with evidence and giving false testimony and you'll find out just how expensive a good lawyer is ....


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> Ok there is a big difference between your private residence and a place of business thats open to the public in regards to expectation of privacy. You are wrong in this regards sir and there are multiple court cases to back this
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy


In part I agree however... i am willing to bet that the video recorder was NOT in a public access area.

your article says "Examples of places where a person has a *reasonable expectation of privacy *are a person's residence or hotel room[1] and *public places which have been specifically provided by businesses or the public sector in order to ensure privacy,* such as public restrooms, private portions of jailhouses,[2] or a phone booth.[3]

Even if the recorder was behind the clerk, that area is not public.

I like the question you were asked before by kauboy "How far would you allow this to extend until it became unreasonable? Could officers entire private homes and collect their footage too, just because they have a security camera on their property? Being a business doesn't change the fact that it's PRIVATE PROPERTY. "

If you want to allow the police to take your property - feel free- If this was my store i would have protested, I would have been arrested, I would be purchasing a new home with my court award!!! I would send a nice thank you letter to the police department after


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> and by held they may have had him sitting on the curb for a couple hours while they where sorting things out then put him in the back of a car and took him to station for an interview. it seems like everybody wants to jump on the police whenever they're accused of violating peoples "rights". they're innocent until proven guilty as well!


you do realize that being innocent until proven guilty only counts in court not in COURT of public opinion


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Operator6 said:


> I would say the entire store property would be a crime scene and the video was definitely evidence. They secured the evidence and then was granted a warrant to remove and retain that evidence.
> 
> Judge Judy my Grandmama......


You could say that but you would be wrong.

They did not secure the tape, they seized it without a warrant and then got a warrant.

No part of this happened inside the store. If a robbery is shot outside your home, can the cops enter to take you video recorder or make you leave because it is a crime scene

Some folks play the lottery..others get lucky and have the police do something stupid


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

Maine-Marine said:


> In part I agree however... i am willing to bet that the video recorder was NOT in a public access area.
> 
> your article says "Examples of places where a person has a *reasonable expectation of privacy *are a person's residence or hotel room[1] and *public places which have been specifically provided by businesses or the public sector in order to ensure privacy,* such as public restrooms, private portions of jailhouses,[2] or a phone booth.[3]
> 
> ...


You know we both have our opinions and nothing the other says is going to change it. I'd say lets see how the case ends up but I'm betting it will be settled with a minor financial award and a statement that the police are claiming no wrong doing.

As far as your other questions go there are too many assumptions and not enough facts, all we have is a single story from one point of view because the city isn't going to make any statements. From what I read I'm assuming it was located in an office or behind the counter in which case I think what happened is perfectly fine and legal. If the clerk lived at the business and had the hardware in his living quarters it would be a different story, they would need a warrant. You're also talking about the police siezing property willy nilly just because they felt like it and thats not the case. What they took was evidence in a homicide case it was just and reasonable seizure and the property owner will be compensated or will have his property returned upon completion of the case. In fact we don't even know what they took. Did they make a copy of the tape, take the disk out, or rip the whole system out?

I hope this all is coherent, I'm about to go to bed after working the midnight shift and my brain is fried. Have a good day all!


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> You know we both have our opinions and nothing the other says is going to change it. I'd say lets see how the case ends up but I'm betting it will be settled with a minor financial award and a statement that the police are claiming no wrong doing.
> 
> As far as your other questions go there are too many assumptions and not enough facts, all we have is a single story from one point of view because the city isn't going to make any statements. From what I read I'm assuming it was located in an office or behind the counter in which case I think what happened is perfectly fine and legal. If the clerk lived at the business and had the hardware in his living quarters it would be a different story, they would need a warrant. You're also talking about the police siezing property willy nilly just because they felt like it and thats not the case. What they took was evidence in a homicide case it was just and reasonable seizure and the property owner will be compensated or will have his property returned upon completion of the case. In fact we don't even know what they took. Did they make a copy of the tape, take the disk out, or rip the whole system out?
> 
> I hope this all is coherent, I'm about to go to bed after working the midnight shift and my brain is fried. Have a good day all!


Let me try a different tack..

without a warrant is is ILLEGAL to seize property from non-involved citizens. (and yes he was non-involved) If a person was across the street filming, the police could not seize that camera and take the recording as evidence.

in order for the police to enter the area that the recorder is located AND to remove the tape they would need to obtain a warrant. why because they are leave the public area of the STORE and moving to a non-public area that is PRIVATELY owned.

What they took does not matter...that they took matters.

_In the criminal law realm, Fourth Amendment "search and seizure" protections extend to:

A law enforcement officer's physical apprehension or "seizure" of a person, by way of a stop or arrest; and

Police searches of places and items in which an individual has a legitimate expectation of privacy -- his or her person, clothing, purse, luggage, vehicle, house, apartment, hotel room, and *place of business*, to name a few examples._

Read this Probable Cause - FindLaw and Search and Seizure and the Fourth Amendment - FindLaw

I wonder if he gets the big pickup or a corvette as his THE POLICE DID A NO NO REWARD


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

Maine-Marine said:


> You could say that but you would be wrong.
> 
> They did not secure the tape, they seized it without a warrant and then got a warrant.
> 
> ...


It's not a home it's a business and the whole property becomes a crime scene. Do you think you could walk into the store and buy a drink while they took pics and marked the shell casing ? They rope off the whole parking lot.

Some folks play the lottery, others get to sue the police and some buy Canadian silver coins......it all works out.


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

This store owner understands his situation. If he is looks like he helped AT
ALL he would most likely be killed and that store burned to the ground. 

He had no choice but to file a lawsuit and claim they took the tape and locked him in a car.


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

Maine-Marine said:


> Let me try a different tack..
> 
> without a warrant is is ILLEGAL to seize property from non-involved citizens. (and yes he was non-involved) If a person was across the street filming, the police could not seize that camera and take the recording as evidence.
> 
> ...


The Fourth Amendment "Reasonableness" Requirement - FindLaw

5) Warrantless searches, seizures, and arrests may be justified by "exigent" circumstances. To determine whether exigent circumstances justified police conduct, a court must review the totality of the circumstances, including the gravity of the underlying offense and whether the suspect was fleeing or trying to escape. However, the surrounding circumstances must be tantamount to an emergency. Shots fired, screams heard, or fire emanating from inside a building have all been considered sufficiently exigent to dispense with the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.

Not every search, seizure, or arrest must be made pursuant to a lawfully executed warrant. The Supreme Court has ruled that warrantless police conduct may comply with the Fourth Amendment so long as it is reasonable under the circumstances. The exceptions made to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement reflect the Court's reluctance to unduly impede the job of law enforcement officials. The Court has attempted to strike a balance between the practical realities of daily police work and the privacy and freedom interests of the public. Always requiring police officers to take the time to complete a warrant application and locate and appear before a judge could result in the destruction of evidence, the disappearance of suspects and witnesses, or both. The circumstances under which a warrantless search, seizure, or arrest is deemed reasonable generally fall within seven categories.
---.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now do you think a court is going to rule that the video of a business that's open to the public and the cameras are taking video of the public coming and going and the cops wanting to preserve this video by seizing it is unreasonable ?

Maybe in the liberal north or in California.........not in Louisiana. You ever been there ? Lol !


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Operator6 said:


> The Fourth Amendment "Reasonableness" Requirement - FindLaw
> 
> 5) Warrantless searches, seizures, and arrests may be justified by "exigent" circumstances. To determine whether exigent circumstances justified police conduct, a court must review the totality of the circumstances, including the gravity of the underlying offense and whether the suspect was fleeing or trying to escape. However, the surrounding circumstances must be tantamount to an emergency. Shots fired, screams heard, or fire emanating from inside a building have all been considered sufficiently exigent to dispense with the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.
> 
> ...


you realize that the building was not on fire and nobodies life was in danger

I am willing to bet $1,000 that if this case goes to court the cops get spanked... want to pace a wager


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Operator6 said:


> It's not a home it's a business and the whole property becomes a crime scene.


you need to read a few court cases...


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

Illegal Search and Seizure FAQs - FindLaw

Plain view. Police do not need a search warrant to seize evidence that is in plain view of a place where the police are legally authorized to be.

--------------------------------------

So it's a public store and cops are allowed to walk into the store. If the video equipment was in plain sight, why wouldn't it fall under the above ?
It's evidence and they "seized" it.

There are so many loopholes for the cops, especially when there are no charges being levied against the store owner.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Operator6 said:


> Illegal Search and Seizure FAQs - FindLaw
> 
> Plain view. Police do not need a search warrant to seize evidence that is in plain view of a place where the police are legally authorized to be.
> 
> ...


I doubt that the recorder was in plain view.. although as always, you will twist things to suite your ideas. I am guessing that most stores have their recorders in a back room... except the stores in OPERATOR6 land where they are located in plain view on the counter top next to the BULLSHIT spray

you are going on ignore for being a argumentative arrogant idiot... goodday sir


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

Maine-Marine said:


> you need to read a few court cases...


Do you live in a major metropolitan area ? Listen my man, I do and have my entire life.

I pass crime scenes on a regular basis. Do you think they put that crime scene tape up for fun ?

You think because you own the property the police can't keep you off the property without a warrant ? Let someone turn up dead and things change a little my friend.

You will be denied access to your property for a reasonable amount of time.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

here ya go


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

Maine-Marine said:


> I doubt that the recorder was in plain view.. although as always, you will twist things to suite your ideas. I am guessing that most stores have their recorders in a back room... except the stores in OPERATOR6 land where they are located in plain view on the counter top next to the BULLSHIT spray
> 
> you are going on ignore for being a argumentative arrogant idiot... goodday sir


Often the equipment is in plain view right behind the counter. They want people to see the monitor. The recorder maybe hidden, if they're smart.

Awwwwe poor guy can't take a debate. Grow up little boy.....


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

Maine-Marine said:


> here ya go
> 
> View attachment 18681





Operator6 said:


> Often the equipment is in plain view right behind the counter. They want people to see the monitor. The recorder maybe hidden, if they're smart.
> 
> Awwwwe poor guy can't take a debate. Grow up little boy.....


There ya go, you can read it now. Wouldn't want you to miss something important.


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

Maine-Marine said:


> you realize that the building was not on fire and nobodies life was in danger
> 
> I am willing to bet $1,000 that if this case goes to court the cops get spanked... want to pace a wager


I believe they thought the evidence would disappear. As the law dictates they can prevent that without the need for a warrant.

If I thought you actually had the 1,000 to pay me, I might would accept the wager.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

What else would you expect from a muzslime roach?

I'll bet CAIR put him up to it, more of their power manipulation to scare us.

That whole area was a crime scene, I would have done the same, secure the evidence.


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

Evidence of the guy possibly threatening the homeless guy with a gun as reported and the reason why they forced the issue with the suspect.

Breaking news about the suspect who was shot. He's done similar before but wasn't shot......
http://www.wafb.com/story/32431300/the-investigators-new-detail


----------



## SGG (Nov 25, 2015)

BLM won't care


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

SOCOM42 said:


> What else would you expect from a muzslime roach?
> 
> I'll bet CAIR put him up to it, more of their power manipulation to scare us.
> 
> That whole area was a crime scene, I would have done the same, secure the evidence.


Heck they should have taken the donuts too..

"THE WHOLE AREA" is a wonderful legal term... almost like ALL YA ALL


----------



## Coastie dad (Jan 2, 2016)

Two syllables.

All ya'll.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

MM, you probably buy into the "hands up don't" shoot crowds BS.

Perhaps you are a closet member of BLM also, seeing you care about the downtrodden so much.

I said the whole area as a general or blanket coverage, fifty feet radius from where the turd laid would readily be part of the crime scene.

Plus the store itself, from where the inital incident started.

Why don't you go back to the "Liberals R Us" forum, your postings indicate that is where you belong, judging the police before you know the facts.

Do me a BIG FAVOR, put me on your ignore list, I don't like sparing with uninformed, left leaning trolls.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

SOCOM42 said:


> MM, you probably buy into the "hands up don't" shoot crowds BS.


Thanks for asking, but no.. Mike Brown the gentle giant was killed due to his own actions and his hands were never up.



SOCOM42 said:


> Perhaps you are a closet member of BLM also, seeing you care about the downtrodden so much.


Perhaps you give back rubs to Hillary supporters and hum rap music while fondling a small farm animal in the back of a prius



SOCOM42 said:


> I said the whole area as a general or blanket coverage, fifty feet radius from where the turd laid would readily be part of the crime scene.


I would like to see the court ruling on this 50 foot thingiee you are spouting off about



SOCOM42 said:


> Why don't you go back to the "Liberals R Us" forum, your postings indicate that is where you belong, judging the police before you know the facts.


i was making my statements based off of what is known so far.. you are making up things as you go along WISHING they are correct



SOCOM42 said:


> Do me a BIG FAVOR, put me on your ignore list, I don't like sparing with uninformed, left leaning trolls


Put me on ignore if you are tired of being schooled like a wee little girl in a catholic school dress -


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

When someone is killed they rope the entire property off to preserve the scene.

MM is not taking into consideration that we don't live in a book........ I'm in the community and see this from time to time.

Here, look at the pic in this link. Man was shot in parking lot and they roped the whole place off.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/crime/article48448575.html

I guess they were wrong huh MM ? Lol !!!


----------



## Urinal Cake (Oct 19, 2013)

Let's see how long he'll be around in business.


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

Operator6 said:


> I would say the entire store property would be a crime scene and the video was definitely evidence. They secured the evidence and then was granted a warrant to remove and retain that evidence.
> 
> Judge Judy my Grandmama......


So If the police had to shoot someone, not in your family or living or working for you, outside your house or business, You contend that your House and or Business can be seized and searched without a warrant?

And as to expectation of privacy in a place of business, the loss of expectation is to the public due to the rights of the business owner to video tape, or search for theft of his property, as is the right to not be detained. Otherwise a security guard at Walmart could be charged with kidnapping for holding an "innocent" person for the police to later arrest. It does not equal a loss of the owner's rights to not be warrantlessly searched or have property seized.

As for an exigent emergency....The loss of life and threat ended upon the shooting by the police, the rest was simply potential evidence...Police have no right to take it without a warrant...

I recommend you folks take the nationality or Culture of the owner out of it, for a moment and see if you still believe its OK, if so...whats good for the goose is good for the Gander.


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

Operator6 said:


> When someone is killed they rope the entire property off to preserve the scene.
> 
> MM is not taking into consideration that we don't live in a book........ I'm in the community and see this from time to time.
> 
> ...


Roping a crime scene off to preserve evidence is one thing, extending a crime seen of an exterior lot, when the crime was knowingly done in the parking lot, in front of the officers, and they Shot him in the parking lot, is different than coming upon a dead body in a parking lot where a murderer may have come from or fled into the building...and in any case once the store was secured front and back, they should still need a warrant to search the video tapes unless the owner agrees.


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

New guy 101 said:


> So If the police had to shoot someone, not in your family or living or working for you, outside your house or business, You contend that your House and or Business can be seized and searched without a warrant?
> 
> And as to expectation of privacy in a place of business, the loss of expectation is to the public due to the rights of the business owner to video tape, or search for theft of his property, as is the right to not be detained. Otherwise a security guard at Walmart could be charged with kidnapping for holding an "innocent" person for the police to later arrest. It does not equal a loss of the owner's rights to not be warrantlessly searched or have property seized.
> 
> ...


A house has nothing to do with this. If someone gets shot outside your convenient store, yes you can bet the store parking lot will be roped off and the store will be closed until the scene is processed. That's just a fact.

A crime had taken place and the police had to use deadly force. The crime scene included the store property and evidence of that crime was inside that store. The police secured that evidence and have the right to, if they believe the evidence will be destroyed or taken.

A court decides later if it was reasonable. I believe a court will find that reasonable. .

He claims he was detained, I doubt he can prove that. I don't care what race he is, doesn't change anything for me.

I don't think the guy has a case, plenty of lawyers will file a case like that to get national media coverage and use it for some high quality advertisement.


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

Operator6 said:


> A house has nothing to do with this. If someone gets shot outside your convenient store, yes you can bet the store parking lot will be roped off and the store will be closed until the scene is processed. That's just a fact.
> 
> A crime had taken place and the police had to use deadly force. The crime scene included the store property and evidence of that crime was inside that store. The police secured that evidence and have the right to, if they believe the evidence will be destroyed or taken.
> 
> ...


Evidence of what crime was in the store? Of the previous gun waiving claim, or of the CD's...and either way...Do the police have a right to demand your home security tapes if a crime happens on your lawn, in which you are not party too, just because you have a camera pointed at the street? or must they get a warrant?


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

New guy 101 said:


> Roping a crime scene off to preserve evidence is one thing, extending a crime seen of an exterior lot, when the crime was knowingly done in the parking lot, in front of the officers, and they Shot him in the parking lot, is different than coming upon a dead body in a parking lot where a murderer may have come from or fled into the building...and in any case once the store was secured front and back, they should still need a warrant to search the video tapes unless the owner agrees.


The police did eventually get a warrant. They secured the evidence until they obtained the warrant to remove it. The FBI now has the evidence that you claim was illegal seized.


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

Operator6 said:


> The police did eventually get a warrant. They secured the evidence until they obtained the warrant to remove it. The FBI now has the evidence that you claim was illegal seized.


I didn't claim anything was illegally seized. If they got a warrant before they took the video, its legally seized...don't put words in my mouth.


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

New guy 101 said:


> I didn't claim anything was illegally seized. If they got a warrant before they took the video, its legally seized...don't put words in my mouth.


But also don't claim they didn't need a warrant to seize it, when they went and got a warrant to seize it, otherwise, why bother? If they took it before hand and then got the warrant to cover their asses, it only serves to prove they did something wrong, and my statement is right..... if they didn't take it until the warrant was issued...then it also proves I'm right.


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

New guy 101 said:


> Evidence of what crime was in the store? Of the previous gun waiving claim, or of the CD's...and either way...Do the police have a right to demand your home security tapes if a crime happens on your lawn, in which you are not party too, just because you have a camera pointed at the street? or must they get a warrant?


A house has nothing to do with it.

Police have the right to secure evidence. They probably walked in the store and saw the equipment and monitor, the evidence of the gun and evidence of a felony resulting in death in the parking lot.

I simply don't believe the store owner. I think he's lying about what he said and what he agreed to. I think he's scared the community would kill him if they think he's cooperating with the police.


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

New guy 101 said:


> I didn't claim anything was illegally seized. If they got a warrant before they took the video, its legally seized...don't put words in my mouth.


If your not arguing the video was illegally seized then what is your argument ?


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

New guy 101 said:


> But also don't claim they didn't need a warrant to seize it, when they went and got a warrant to seize it, otherwise, why bother? If they took it before hand and then got the warrant to cover their asses, it only serves to prove they did something wrong, and my statement is right..... if they didn't take it until the warrant was issued...then it also proves I'm right.


The police seized it to prevent its destruction or its removal. Then they got a warrant.


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

Operator6 said:


> A house has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Police have the right to secure evidence. They probably walked in the store and saw the equipment and monitor, the evidence of the gun and evidence of a felony resulting in death in the parking lot.
> 
> I simply don't believe the store owner. I think he's lying about what he said and what he agreed to. I think he's scared the community would kill him if they think he's cooperating with the police.


A house has everything to do with it, because if you think it's allowed in a privately owned business than it will also be allowed in a privately owned House....and if You thinking he's lying is justification for his rights to be null and void remember that it can be used against you when someone thinks your lying or hiding something...

Why else would the police execute a search warrant...they think your lying when you say you have nothing illegal on your property or evidence of any crime. They don't think you're telling the whole truth when they have to get that pesky search warrant. They think your lying, and possibly destroying evidence while they wait for it.


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

Operator6 said:


> The police seized it to prevent its destruction or its removal. Then they got a warrant.


And it's unlawful Search and Seizure... To seize without a warrant,not simply restrict access to it, but to take possession of it, without a warrant is illegal as well. To seize it they had to go into the store, where no crime was being committed or had been committed, and in doing so entered as a private citizen. The police cannot enter a private business for the conduct of search and seizure without a warrant to do so or reasonable cause to suspect a crime was being committed. The person who owned the store was not suspected of any crime, nor was the store interior a place where a crime was reported.


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

New guy 101 said:


> A house has everything to do with it, because if you think it's allowed in a privately owned business than it will also be allowed in a privately owned House....and if You thinking he's lying is justification for his rights to be null and void remember that it can be used against you when someone thinks your lying or hiding something...
> 
> Why else would the police execute a search warrant...they think your lying when you say you have nothing illegal on your property or evidence of any crime. They don't think you're telling the whole truth when they have to get that pesky search warrant. They think your lying, and possibly destroying evidence while they wait for it.


Do you think the police have the liberty to walk into a public store ?

While in that public store if they see evidence pertaining to a felony resulting in death that just immediately occurred outside they can secure that evidence ? Lmfao ......sure they can and they did.


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

A court will eventually decide if the police were reasonable in securing that video. IMO they will find the police acted reasonably given the circumstance.


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

Operator6 said:


> Do you think the police have the liberty to walk into a public store ?
> 
> While in that public store if they see evidence pertaining to a felony resulting in death that just immediately occurred outside they can secure that evidence ? Lmfao ......sure they can and they did.


You're being retarded, The police have a responsibility to respond to any crime and can immediately secure the scene for an investigation...whether in a house or a store...just as if they hear gun shots from in a house they can breach to respond....This is not the same as what your arguing..

You are arguing that if a crime happens outside of a building the police have a right to enter and seize anything possibly relating to that crime that happened outside, regardless if the criminal had never been in that house, and was not the owner, related to the owner, or resided in that building...I'm saying that they cannot, without a warrant, The fact that they have the right to enter that building as a civilian (which they are unless they are there on official business) does not change what they are required to do once they start being an officer again


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

New guy 101 said:


> You're being retarded, The police have a responsibility to respond to any crime and can immediately secure the scene for an investigation...whether in a house or a store...just as if they hear gun shots from in a house they can breach to respond....This is not the same as what your arguing..
> 
> You are arguing that if a crime happens outside of a building the police have a right to enter and seize anything possibly relating to that crime that happened outside, regardless if the criminal had never been in that house, and was not the owner, related to the owner, or resided in that building...I'm saying that they cannot, without a warrant


I see you can't have a civilized discussion, that shows frustration and ignorance.

A house for the last time has nothing to do with a store that serves the public.

Cop walks in and sees the evidence, he can secure it and that's what they did.

Do you knock on a convenient stores door before you enter it ? How about a neighbors house or a friend ?

See the difference ? Lmfao !!!!!


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

Operator6 said:


> I see you can't have a civilized discussion, that shows frustration and ignorance.
> 
> A house for the last time has nothing to do with a store that serves the public.
> 
> ...


A public business has the right to open and close his business when ever he wants, When he turns on his Open sign its the same as when you open your door for a backyard barbecue and invite people over. The knocking is usually replaced by a bell, a chimes, or some other device, or maybe not even there, It doesn't mean the owner gives up the right to unlawful search and seizure. 
A cop walking in for the purpose of seeking evidence in the building must have a warrant, a cop seeing a camera outdoor pointed at the seen and wanting to go review the tape for evidence must secure a warrant. A cop walking down the isle of the store buying milk sees the cashier snorting coke, can arrest and confiscate the evidence, but to get the video he needs to get permission from the store owner, or get a warrant. The simple fact that the cops got a warrant supports my point that it is mandatory...So why are you going against what I and apparently they think is the lawful way to have gotten the tapes?

and continue to laugh your fat ass off as you argue that the same rights we have in our homes are not there for us in our private businesses and private automobiles as well. You may be happy with differing levels of constitutional rights for your various properties, I am not. If it's my Home, My RV, My Garage, My out house, My chicken coop My motorcycle, My treehouse, or my business. THose rights apply to each of them all the damn time.

The unlocked door and the "Open for business sign" is the equivalent of the knock and permission to enter....No different than if your neighbor put up a sign that said "we're around back...come on in."


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

New guy 101 said:


> A public business has the right to open and close his business when ever he wants, When he turns on his Open sign its the same as when you open your door for a backyard barbecue and invite people over. The knocking is usually replaced by a bell, a chimes, or some other device, or maybe not even there, It doesn't mean the owner gives up the right to unlawful search and seizure.
> A cop walking in for the purpose of seeking evidence in the building must have a warrant, a cop seeing a camera outdoor pointed at the seen and wanting to go review the tape for evidence must secure a warrant. A cop walking down the isle of the store buying milk sees the cashier snorting coke, can arrest and confiscate the evidence, but to get the video he needs to get permission from the store owner, or get a warrant. The simple fact that the cops got a warrant supports my point that it is mandatory...So why are you going against what I and apparently they think is the lawful way to have gotten the tapes?
> 
> and continue to laugh your fat ass off as you argue that the same rights we have in our homes are not there for us in our private businesses and private automobiles as well. You may be happy with differing levels of constitutional rights for your various properties, I am not. If it's my Home, My RV, My Garage, My out house, My chicken coop My motorcycle, My treehouse, or my business. THose rights apply to each of them all the damn time.


The business was open at the time and the police had free access to walk in. They did just that and secured the evidence.

Guess what ? They (the government) still has it, and they'll keep it until they give it back.

You definitely do not have the same rights in a home as you do a business. That's not up for debate, it's fact.

Ok, maybe just maybe I will continue this discussion later, but I might just suggest you read my posts over and over if you have anymore questions for me.

In this Yankee town,New York the government requires some businesses to install video security cameras and give full access or the business owner can be jailed !!!
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ess-video-surveillance-police-access/5422529/


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

Operator6 said:


> The business was open at the time and the police had free access to walk in. They did just that and secured the evidence.
> 
> Guess what ? They (the government) still has it, and they'll keep it until they give it back.
> 
> You definitely do not have the same rights in a home as you do a business. That's not up for debate, it's fact.


And they had to get a warrant to get it legally....which was my point....and not yours.

Enlighten me with what rights the "OWNER" gives up with his business as opposed to his home? The Facts please.


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

Operator6 said:


> ..... That's not up for debate, it's fact.


Thats what they keep saying about Climate change too.....


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

New guy 101 said:


> And they had to get a warrant to get it legally....which was my point....and not yours.
> 
> Enlighten me with what rights the "OWNER" gives up with his business as opposed to his home? The Facts please.


They had to have a warrant to keep it. They didn't need a warrant to secure it, and that's what they did.

You can discriminate based on race openly in your home. A pizza joint can't refuse delivery to black folks.......

Get it yet ?


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

Operator6 said:


> They had to have a warrant to keep it. They didn't need a warrant to secure it, and that's what they did.
> 
> You can discriminate based on race openly in your home. A pizza joint can't refuse delivery to black folks.......
> 
> Get it yet ?


So the right to discriminate is a constitutional right? Sure I have a right to allow whoever I want to enter my home. and as a requirement for operating with a business license I must obey additional laws that do not apply to home owners...doesn't mean I give up my basic rights. We are talking about the Bill of rights here correct?


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

New guy 101 said:


> So the right to discriminate is a constitutional right?


It's called free will. Can you refuse to let black people into your home based on race alone ? Sure you can

Can a pizza joint refuse to serve black people ? No they can't.

Isn't that clear to you ?


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

Operator6 said:


> It's called free will. Can you refuse to let black people into your home based on race alone ? Sure you can
> 
> Can a pizza joint refuse to serve black people ? No they can't.
> 
> Isn't that clear to you ?


Those are not The rights covered under the Bill of rights that are protected for us. A store owner must open his business to all people, however he can ask people to leave, gun carriers for example, and he can close his store down at anytime he chooses to the public. Its simply an additional law to follow as part of conducting business,,,does not take away his rights. The right to discriminate who come into your home is protected by your property rights of ownership and by the 4th amendment against Government and law enforcement. The Store still has the protection under the 4th amendment.

isn't that clear to you????


----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

New guy 101 said:


> Those are not The rights covered under the Bill of rights that are protected for us. A store owner must open his business to all people, however he can ask people to leave, gun carriers for example, and he can close his store down at anytime he chooses to the public. Its simply an additional law to follow as part of conducting business,,,does not take away his civil rights.
> 
> isn't that clear to you????


His civil rights were not taken away. Isn't that clear to you ?

A police officer securing evidence because he has reason to believe it will be destroyed doesn't violate his civil rights.

Has the DOJ opened up a civil rights violation investigation ? Wouldn't you think they'd love to ?


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

Operator6 said:


> His civil rights were not taken away. Isn't that clear to you ?
> 
> A police officer securing evidence because he has reason to believe it will be destroyed doesn't violate his civil rights.
> 
> Had the DOJ opened up a civil rights violation investigation ?


It takes away his 4th amendment rights..meant to say his constitutionally protected rights.


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

So your argument is that if a police officer thinks you might destroy evidence in your home or business, he has the right to seize it without a warrant?


and in order to do so he has the right to hold you, detain you, even if you are not charged with, thought to be a part of, or under investigation for any crime?

SO a cop can get word from your neighbor, your smoking crack in your house, the officer than then come knock on your door, detain you and enter your home and search for and seize your crack, in order to not let you flush it down the toilet. While he waits for the warrant to search for it?

Are you a Cop?????


----------



## Maol9 (Mar 20, 2015)

Operator6 said:


> It's called free will. Can you refuse to let black people into your home based on race alone ? Sure you can
> 
> Can a pizza joint refuse to serve black people ? No they can't.
> 
> Isn't that clear to you ?


Damn it I could have gone with a no blacks allowed sign? Who knew. Instead I went with one of those sticky targets with the red bulls eye shot out stuck to the back door window at eyeball height. Really freaked out the cops looking for a black guy that was slinking around down the road at the neighbors. Kept they eyeballing it the whole time they were talking to us. We laughed for days, in fact I am still chuckling, right now. The slinker never did stop by...


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

No matter how you slice it , it comes down to whether you believe that Police still have a responsibility to get a warrant to search for and seize private property. Business or not. Evidence of a crime, in plain sight, can be seized, but in this case they got a warrant. Your position is they need nothing more than to walk around the store and then its in plain sight, where as I contest that the crime scene was outside the building and the only thing in plain sight was a camera, which is not evidence of a crime being committed, but rather potential evidence to prove a crime had taken place or that the actions of the officers where justified. To get to the evidence itself, which is the tape, and private property, they need a warrant. Someone getting shot on your lawn does not justify your entire property becoming a crime scene in all cases...especially if it was the cops that shot them.

In the end...they got a warrant, which leads credence to the position that whether business or house...we still have protection under the 4th amendment.

and you like to use that line "Isn't that clear to you???" followed by "lmfao???" which is the same as saying "You're too stupid to see things my way" and laughing at perceived ignorance...and then you get all self righteous when I say your acting retarded. claiming I'm unable to rationally argue a point.... To that I'll say, pull up your underoos and buck up there Little fella, life's to hard to get ass hurt over little words. May I suggest some enriched ointment to sooth your butt hurtness? and a parrot that can repeat back to you 'Can't you see that?...aaarrrkkkk,,,,dumber than dirt...dumber than dirt....aaaaawwwwkkk. one for the moral support and the other for the physical support.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)




----------



## Operator6 (Oct 29, 2015)

New guy 101 said:


> No matter how you slice it , it comes down to whether you believe that Police still have a responsibility to get a warrant to search for and seize private property. Business or not. Evidence of a crime, in plain sight, can be seized, but in this case they got a warrant. Your position is they need nothing more than to walk around the store and then its in plain sight, where as I contest that the crime scene was outside the building and the only thing in plain sight was a camera, which is not evidence of a crime being committed, but rather potential evidence to prove a crime had taken place or that the actions of the officers where justified. To get to the evidence itself, which is the tape, and private property, they need a warrant. Someone getting shot on your lawn does not justify your entire property becoming a crime scene in all cases...especially if it was the cops that shot them.
> 
> In the end...they got a warrant, which leads credence to the position that whether business or house...we still have protection under the 4th amendment.
> 
> and you like to use that line "Isn't that clear to you???" followed by "lmfao???" which is the same as saying "You're too stupid to see things my way" and laughing at perceived ignorance...and then you get all self righteous when I say your acting retarded. claiming I'm unable to rationally argue a point.... To that I'll say, pull up your underoos and buck up there Little fella, life's to hard to get ass hurt over little words. May I suggest some enriched ointment to sooth your butt hurtness? and a parrot that can repeat back to you 'Can't you see that?...aaarrrkkkk,,,,dumber than dirt...dumber than dirt....aaaaawwwwkkk. one for the moral support and the other for the physical support.


Do you feel better now ? Pour up another drink and remember this.......

The police can secure evidence to protect that evidence if they have reason to believe it will be removed or destroyed.

I believe that's what they did and the reason they secured it.

A lawsuit brought by Ali babba and his lawyer isn't going to sway my opinion.

Have a great Friday sport, I'm going to ping steel....... Bye bye ! Lmfao !!!


----------



## Auntie (Oct 4, 2014)

I have to say that I found this thread interesting. People talking about responsibility, law, etc. What about the responsibility of the store owner. Why did the police have to seize it? Why didn't the store owner just hand it over? Did they have something to hide? 

I know that someone that owns a liquor store, they handed over the security tape without being asked because there was a fight in front of her store on the sidewalk.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Auntie said:


> I have to say that I found this thread interesting. People talking about responsibility, law, etc. What about the responsibility of the store owner. Why did the police have to seize it? Why didn't the store owner just hand it over? Did they have something to hide?
> 
> I know that someone that owns a liquor store, they handed over the security tape without being asked because there was a fight in front of her store on the sidewalk.


I am not sure that this store keeper was even asked.. all we know is that it was SEIZED sometime during the time he was held for 4 hours in the back of a police cruiser

so let me ask you... if you were a store owner and a shooting occurred outside - would it be (legal) ok for the police to lock (a witness) you in the back of a cruiser for 4 hours?????
Without seeking permission, would it be legal for them to seize your property

Your post does nothing more then deflect the real question... was it legal for the police to detain him and seize his property???

SO in answer to your question "What about the responsibility of the store owner." the store keeper has no LEGAL responsibility...and as most attorney will tell you.. he should not even talk to them without a lawyer present

here is a refresher course


----------



## Auntie (Oct 4, 2014)

nevermind


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

I'm betting the tapes will reveal the store owner is operating an underage goat dating site...


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Slippy said:


> I'm betting the tapes will reveal the store owner is operating an underage goat dating site...


if it does, they will not be able to use it as evidence... ha haha haha haha haha haha ha


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

Auntie said:


> I have to say that I found this thread interesting. People talking about responsibility, law, etc. What about the responsibility of the store owner. Why did the police have to seize it? Why didn't the store owner just hand it over? Did they have something to hide?
> 
> I know that someone that owns a liquor store, they handed over the security tape without being asked because there was a fight in front of her store on the sidewalk.


Auntie, Think of it this way...What if the tapes would show the guy never reached for a weapon??? The owner may feel that turning over the tapes to the very officers who may have committed a crime was a sure way to lose the evidence. Not saying that was the case, but I would not turn over any evidence until I had a lawyer and had requested a copy of it before it was removed.


----------



## Auntie (Oct 4, 2014)

Good point new guy. At the store I was referring to earlier, theirs is digital so a copy was made for the police. The original is on a hard drive off site.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Auntie said:


> I have to say that I found this thread interesting. People talking about responsibility, law, etc. What about the responsibility of the store owner. Why did the police have to seize it? Why didn't the store owner just hand it over? Did they have something to hide?
> 
> I know that someone that owns a liquor store, they handed over the security tape without being asked because there was a fight in front of her store on the sidewalk.


If he'd turned it over to the police he couldn't sell it to a media outlet. Just like the law suit it's all about the benjamins


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Real Old Man said:


> If he'd turned it over to the police he couldn't sell it to a media outlet. Just like the law suit it's all about the benjamins


4 hours of illegal detention = $4,000,000 plus illegal taking of property without due process.... Hope he gets a new wife and several new goats


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Maine-Marine said:


> 4 hours of illegal detention = $4,000,000 plus illegal taking of property without due process.... Hope he gets a new wife and several new goats


I hope he gets deported immediately.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Slippy said:


> I hope he gets deported immediately.


Not gonna happen.

We have enough defense attorneys here on this board that know exactly what happened and will get him all the money he wants. They'll probably even get him elected governor.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Ain't that the truth!


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

I certainly ain't claiming to be a defense lawyer...but if this board is about our constitutional rights being protected then I'm in the right place...if this board is about if you look different or have a different faith then all the better that your rights get taken, then I am at the wrong forum. I don't care who the store owner is, or if he's suing for 4 million or 40 virgins...his loss of rights today can be our loss tomorrow. 

I will stand and defend all Americans, and those here legally, rights under our constitution...but I am not judging him, or the cops, or the dead guy...just simply talking about what I think the constitution says about search and seizure laws under various conditions. 

If you only think they apply to you and those like you, well then we are not on the same side in the debate.


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

Slippy said:


> I hope he gets deported immediately.


Slippy, if he is here legally, and either a citizen or on a green card, and has committed no crime, why would you want him deported immediately?


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

New guy 101 said:


> Slippy, if he is here legally, and either a citizen or on a green card, and has committed no crime, why would you want him deported immediately?


If he's not a citizen I'd punt his ass quicker than you can say Allahu Akbar.

Don't give us this progressive liberal crap.


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

Slippy said:


> If he's not a citizen I'd punt his ass quicker than you can say Allahu Akbar.
> 
> Don't give us this progressive liberal crap.


I dont consider it progressive or Liberal to want our Constitution to be followed. Just asking you what you believe this guy should be deported for?

My point is that a lot goes on in this world to try and change our Country....If they can effect our (and I mean the people on this forum) desire to have our Constitution, and laws to be applied consistent with the Constitution, by playing to either our fear or our anger...Then we are no better than the people screaming for Gun Control.

And the terrorists, Foreign and Domestic, are winning. Remember the statement about trading Liberty for Security?


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

New guy 101 said:


> I dont consider it progressive or Liberal to want our Constitution to be followed. Just asking you what you believe this guy should be deported for?
> 
> My point is that a lot goes on in this world to try and change our Country....If they can effect our (and I mean the people on this forum) desire to have our Constitution, and laws to be applied consistent with the Constitution, by playing to either our fear or our anger...Then we are no better than the people screaming for Gun Control.
> 
> And the terrorists, Foreign and Domestic, are winning. Remember the statement about trading Liberty for Security?


Again, if he's not a citizen, I'd punt his ass quicker than you can say Allahu Akbar.

What about "if he's not a citizen" has anything to do with the Constitution?


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

Slippy said:


> Again, if he's not a citizen, I'd punt his ass quicker than you can say Allahu Akbar.
> 
> What about "if he's not a citizen" has anything to do with the Constitution?


The bill of rights are extended to those here under immigrations status....they have rights as well. So that's my only point. I'm not going to let fear change my mind about that...if we want to discuss changes that would include not allowing SHARIA LAW SUPPORTING PEOPLE TO IMMIGRATE...I would support that. 
But not selective enforcement of our rights as written.


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

I'm not fighting with you slippy...I just am not going to condone any violating the 4th amendment, based on who the person is....


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

New guy 101 said:


> The bill of rights are extended to those here under immigrations status....they have rights as well. So that's my only point. I'm not going to let fear change my mind about that...if we want to discuss changes that would include not allowing SHARIA LAW SUPPORTING PEOPLE TO IMMIGRATE...I would support that.
> But not selective enforcement of our rights as written.





New guy 101 said:


> I'm not fighting with you slippy...I just am not going to condone any violating the 4th amendment, based on who the person is....


I don't think you understand. A non citizen shouldn't be here, if he's a citizen then no issue. If not, he must be sent out of the country.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

The issue with immigration is this: When you want to come to our country and assimilate then fine.... paraphrased from Teddy Roosevelt and someone had quoted this earlier. 

Too many come now wanting to change us to the country they came from. My question is if they liked that society and lifestyle, why did they leave it? They need to go back.

Immigration needs a moratorium until we can figure out who is who and what they want. Those who want to be Americans and assimilate I'm fine with, the others..... not so much.


----------

