It has begun . . .

[lowbeyond]

So if they made it illegal to own 30-round magazines in CO (no grandfather clause) you'd just throw yours away? What if they made "assault weapons" illegal- you'd turn yours in? I mean, if it was the law...

well if you wish to be/remain a Law Abiding Citizen, then you would have to, right ? I mean it's the law. And the is sacrosanct, right ? You cant just pick and choose which ones you will obey, right ?

[Ronin13]

well if you wish to be/remain a Law Abiding Citizen, then you would have to, right ? I mean it's the law. And the is sacrosanct, right ? You cant just pick and choose which ones you will obey, right ?

So you support following laws, even if they infringe upon the Constitution? You have no obligation to follow any law that clearly violates the constitution. Now I'm not saying you start fighting cops- but fight it in court.

[Dave_L]

I need to go watch Law Abiding Citizen...

[Sawin]

I'm sorry to say this, but I haven't trusted the police nor assumed they had any interest in protecting my individual rights in a long long time.

Why would someone believe that the police DO have any interest in protecting an individuals rights? Their entire purpose is to capture those who break the law, and strip their rights away, not protect those who don't break the law.

[Ronin13]

Why would someone believe that the police DO have any interest in protecting an individuals rights? Their entire purpose is to capture those who break the law, and strip their rights away, not protect those who don't break the law.

Well, and call me naive or what have you- but when I get on JCSO I plan on respecting the rights of individuals within the confines of the law, and I don't see LE's purpose (theoretically) as being "capture those who break the law", what, ideally, LE should be doing is protect and serve their respective community, help prevent crime, and solve the problems they exist to solve- which does include arrests and what not. That's just the way I see it... doesn't mean it happens, but that's how things should be.

[asmo]

Explain

I'll leave it to you to do some research.. But start with United States v. Rengifo where the courts said that “[e]xigent circumstances occur when a reasonable officer could believe that to delay acting to obtain a warrant would, in all likelihood, permanently frustrate an important police objective, such as to prevent the destruction of evidence relating to criminal activity or to secure an arrest before a suspect can commit further serious harm"

More fun: Kentucky v. King, SCOTUS has said that police are allowed to create exigent circumstances with impunity and that the results of such searches are admissible. Thats right - the police themselves can cause the problem that needs to be resolved immediately to preserve evidence or secure an arrest...

Here is an over the top example (that comes straight out of the real world):

If the cops want to see whats in your backpack, they could for example, light it on fire. They would have just created an exigent circumstance in which they can search your backpack 'to preserve evidence'. Its totally legal.

[SuperiorDG]

I'll leave it to you to do some research.. But start with United States v. Rengifo where the courts said that “[e]xigent circumstances occur when a reasonable officer could believe that to delay acting to obtain a warrant would, in all likelihood, permanently frustrate an important police objective, such as to prevent the destruction of evidence relating to criminal activity or to secure an arrest before a suspect can commit further serious harm"

More fun: Kentucky v. King, SCOTUS has said that police are allowed to create exigent circumstances with impunity and that the results of such searches are admissible. Thats right - the police themselves can cause the problem that needs to be resolved immediately to preserve evidence or secure an arrest...

Here is an over the top example (that comes straight out of the real world):

If the cops want to see whats in your backpack, they could for example, light it on fire. They would have just created an exigent circumstance in which they can search your backpack 'to preserve evidence'. Its totally legal.

Is lighting someone's backpack on fire arson?

[asmo]

Is lighting someone's backpack on fire arson?

Heheh.. I see where your going with this.

But no.. Its not an occupied building or structure.

[Ronin13]

Is lighting someone's backpack on fire arson?

Yeah- or assault. I don't think any cop would do that- unless they really wanted to see what life was like on the other side of the bars.

[lowbeyond]

So you support following laws, even if they infringe upon the Constitution? You have no obligation to follow any law that clearly violates the constitution. Now I'm not saying you start fighting cops- but fight it in court.

It can take years and years for cases to wind through the courts, let alone reach the SCOTUS. In the mean time you just gotta comply - or face the penalties -right? So even if a case is currently winding its way through the court, well you comply or face fines jail time whatever, all according to the LAW, a law written by the "legitimate" government elected by the people through our system and enforced by the cops.

And of course there is zero blame on the cops for enforcing a law, zero blame by the clerk who processes you, zero blame for the prosecutor and the judges and everyone associated with a law that clearly violates the constitution. I mean they were just doing their job, just following orders. They had no choice. Right ?

Just remember at this point you no longer are a law abiding person, nope you are a criminal under the Law.

And of course this assumes that you have the $ to fight it in court. If you don't? Well i guess you are shit out of luck, as in that case the courts are effectively closed to you in our system of Justice