haven't seen any outrage over the latest example of judicial activism. what gives??

[Hatfield]

how do conservatives define judicial activism? well, they do it in many ways...they say judicial activism is when a judge substitutes his personal opinion for settled law...they also say it's when a judge imposes his beliefs and his morality on a populas who does not agree with those beliefs and that morality...


here's a story that has both: conservatives judges substituting their beliefs for law that has been settled for over 90 years, and imposing their morality and their beliefs on a populas who has agreed with a basic principle that first emerged in 13th century britain


and not only that, but the new conservative activists on the court have signaled that they would get rid of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, which is that if police violate the 4th amendment, they can't use the evidence they get from said violation - picture it this way: you're sitting at home, just chilling, and a cop WITHOUT A WARRANT busts your door down and starts searching your house, eventually finding your stash

unreasonable search and seizure, right? shouldn't be able to use that in court, right?


well, let's see how long it lasts....



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/...kxBHNlYwN0bQ--




WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court made it easier Thursday for police to barge into homes and seize evidence without knocking or waiting, a sign of the court's new conservatism with Samuel Alito on board.

ADVERTISEMENT

The court, on a 5-4 vote, said judges cannot throw out evidence collected by police who have search warrants but do not properly announce their arrival.

It was a significant rollback of earlier rulings protective of homeowners, even unsympathetic homeowners like Booker Hudson, who had a loaded gun next to him and cocaine rocks in his pocket when Detroit police entered his unlocked home in 1998 without knocking.

The court's five-member conservative majority, anchored by new Chief Justice John Roberts and Alito, said that police blunders should not result in "a get-out-of-jail-free card" for defendants.

Dissenting justices predicted that police will now feel free to ignore previous court rulings requiring officers with search warrants to knock and announce themselves to avoid running afoul of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.

"The knock-and-announce rule is dead in the United States," said David Moran, a Wayne State University professor who represented Hudson. "There are going to be a lot more doors knocked down. There are going to be a lot more people terrified and humiliated."

Supporters said the ruling will help police do their jobs.

"People who are caught red-handed with evidence of guilt have one less weapon to get off," said Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.

The case provides the clearest sign yet of the court without Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Hudson had lost his case in a Michigan appeals court. Justices agreed to hear his appeal last June, four days before O'Connor's surprise announcement that she was retiring.

O'Connor was still on the bench in January when his case was first argued, and she seemed ready to vote with Hudson. "Is there no policy of protecting the home owner a little bit and the sanctity of the home from this immediate entry?" she asked.

She retired before the case was decided, and a new argument was held this spring so that Alito could participate, apparently to break a 4-4 tie.

Four justices, including Alito and Roberts, would have given prosecutors a more sweeping victory but did not have the vote of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a moderate conservative.

Ronald Allen, a Northwestern University Law professor, said the ruling "suggests those four would be happy to consider overturning" a 1961 Supreme Court opinion that said evidence collected in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in trials. "It would be a significant change," he said.

Kennedy joined in most of the ruling but wrote to explain that he did not support ending the knock requirement. "It bears repeating that it is a serious matter if law enforcement officers violate the sanctity of the home by ignoring the requisites of lawful entry," he said.

Kennedy said that legislatures can intervene if police officers do not "act competently and lawfully." He also said that people whose homes are wrongly searched can file a civil rights lawsuit.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said that there are public-interest law firms and attorneys who specialize in civil rights grievances.

Detroit police acknowledge violating the knock-and-announce rule when they called out their presence at Hudson's door, failed to knock, then went inside three seconds to five seconds later. The court has endorsed longer waits, of 15 seconds to 20 seconds. Hudson was convicted of drug possession.

"Whether that preliminary misstep had occurred or not, the police would have executed the warrant they had obtained, and would have discovered the gun and drugs inside the house," Scalia wrote.

Four justices complained in the dissent that the decision erases more than 90 years of Supreme Court precedent.

"It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for himself and Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Breyer said that while police departments can be sued, there is no evidence of anyone collecting much money in such cases.

The case is Hudson v. Michigan, 04-1360.

[BudSooner]

RAAWWRRRR. Pity rage. :D

[usmc-sooner]

See I don't worry about police finding illegal stuff in my house because I don't have any.

If they have a warrant they're going to come in anyways. They aren't going to have a warrant for me and they are not going to find anything illegal in my house so I don't worry about stuff like this.

[Hatfield]

i understand what you are saying, but that really isn't the point now is it?

[1stTimeCaller]

picture it this way: you're sitting at home, just chilling, and a cop WITHOUT A WARRANT busts your door down and starts searching your house, eventually finding your stash

what I gathered from reading the article is that if the cops have a warrant they don't have to announce or wait 15-20 seconds after knocking. Why isn't that reasonable? Should they wait until the perp has flushed all of his coke down the toilet? How long do you think they should wait? 15 seconds? 15 minutes? an hour? a day?

[Sooner in Tampa]

The court's five-member conservative majority, anchored by new Chief Justice John Roberts and Alito, said that police blunders should not result in "a get-out-of-jail-free card" for defendants.
I like this reasoning. How many times have you seen some quilty SOB get off scot free because of a "blunder"...we are not talking about total disregard for rules and regulations, we are talking about police having a warrant to search you house. USUALLY, there is a reason that they were able to get that warrant.

Maybe they should take out an ad in the paper announcing when they plan on serving warrants.

[tbl]

That is the point. The court said if they have a warrant, blah blah. That's a huge difference between them just barging into the house on suspicion.

Liberal activists judges have been assaulting us for years now. A conservative Supreme Court will now do what should have been happening all along; upholding the laws.

[JohnnyMack]

I don't think this is judicial activism as much as it is common sense.

[Osce0la]

I agree with the ruling, if cops can't just barge in (with a warrant of course), are they supposed to come back the next day? Let them know you're there, they don't answer, cops leave, man has 24 hours to get rid of all evidence, drug dealer stays in business. Now if they knock and he doesn't answer, they go in, search anyway, and guy gets busted.

[Hatfield]

as long as we are free to change the definition of judicial activism so that it fits to our own ideology i guess it is cool....is that what i should take from this?

[1stTimeCaller]

so you don't have a problem with the ruling?

Thanks, Tuba Jr. :D

[Sooner in Tampa]

as long as we are free to change the definition of judicial activism so that it fits to our own ideology i guess it is cool....is that what i should take from this?I, for one, do not see any activism in this ruling...THEY HAVE A WARRANT.

[JohnnyMack]

I, for one, do not see any activism in this ruling...THEY HAVE A WARRANT.

Everybody sit down.

Hold on tight.





I agree with CSF on this one.

Sorry Hat.

[tbl]

He's too far left of the screen to read what we're really saying (common sense, reality, etc).

[Okla-homey]

This is a great ruling! Warrant bearing cops are cleared hot for "No-knock Searches." Now the alleged malfeasors don't have time to flush the dope down the terlit.:D

[picasso]

why would anyone cry over this? what a friggin joke.

[SoonerInKCMO]

I, for one, do not see any activism in this ruling...THEY HAVE A WARRANT.

But that's not the point. The point is that the law used to be interpreted one way, and now because of a judicial ruling it will be interpreted differently. I think the point that Hatfield is trying to make is that when rulings are of a liberal nature, there are cries of 'judicial activism'; but in this case, where the ruling is conservative, there are no such cries. It's a double standard. Whether any of us agree with the ruling is moot.

[Hatfield]

ladies and gentleman we have a winner.

[GhostOfJAS]

You got it, SoonerInKCMO. "Judicial activism" == "decision I don't like".

[picasso]

well of course it is. that's politics. doesn't require a 5 paragraph statement to point that out.

it's a big difference in standards though when we're talking about serving warrants to find the bad guy when most of the recent complaining by the right is because the judge is letting the bad guy out.

how many of you who do not break the law are seriously freaking worried about Johnny Law busting down your door? pppffffftttt.

[TUSooner]

See I don't worry about police finding illegal stuff in my house because I don't have any.

If they have a warrant they're going to come in anyways. They aren't going to have a warrant for me and they are not going to find anything illegal in my house so I don't worry about stuff like this.


OK, I have not read the opinion yet, so I don't really know if it does away with "knock and announce." And usmc rightly notes that the presence of a warrant is significant. So the following mini-rant doesn't pretend to address the decision, but just the general principles that it has invoked.

IF there ever is no exclusionary rule or no "fruit of the poisonous tree," there will be nothing to stop the cops from doing what they want when they want. The adage "power corrupts" applies to the cop on the beat just as much as the emperor, an since we don't have an emperor (yet), we ought to worry about those farther down the chain of command.

So usmc is safe... for today. But who knows what will be illegal tomorrow? Then what? Or suppose you live in a small town with a sheriff who likes to lean on people just because he doesn't like the way they look? And would you like the cops just dropping by the old castle whenever they want to have a look around "just in case"?

Sorry, but that sort of short-sigtedness is what lets governments erode the rights of ALL, and it makes cowards of the people because they will have given away all their legal protections.

Our Revolutionary generation must be shocked by what a generation of lambs we have become.

This is the kind of issue that draws the line between traditional conservatives who want less government and the neo-fascists who really only want government to do less for other folks but more to enforce their way of life. The sad thing is that the neofascists thing they are getting prortection for their own "liberty" to live as they want, when they are really selling their own souls, with payment to be demanded at a later date.

[Sooner in Tampa]

But that's not the point. The point is that the law used to be interpreted one way, and now because of a judicial ruling it will be interpreted differently. I think the point that Hatfield is trying to make is that when rulings are of a liberal nature, there are cries of 'judicial activism'; but in this case, where the ruling is conservative, there are no such cries. It's a double standard. Whether any of us agree with the ruling is moot.I completely understand what you are saying. What I SHOULD have said is this...it was a 5-4 ruling...very close. Now the dealio is that the police are no longer required to knock or announce themselves when entering a domicile that they have a warrant on...this is along the lines of common sense, why warn someone that you are going to arrest them.

Again, I don't see "activism" in this ruling. I don't see this issue as right vs. left...so it cannot be defined as someone trying to push an agenda.

[picasso]

OK, I have not read the opinion yet, so I don't really know if it does away with "knock and announce." And usmc rightly notes that the presence of a warrant is significant. So the following mini-rant doesn't pretend to address the decision, but just the general principles that it has invoked.

IF there ever is no exclusionary rule or no "fruit of the poisonous tree," there will be nothing to stop the cops from doing what they want when they want. The adage "power corrupts" applies to the cop on the beat just as much as the emperor, an since we don't have an emperor (yet), we ought to worry about those farther down the chain of command.

So usmc is safe... for today. But who knows what will be illegal tomorrow? Then what? Or suppose you live in a small town with a sheriff who likes to lean on people just because he doesn't like the way they look? And would you like the cops just dropping by the old castle whenever they want to have a look around "just in case"?

Sorry, but that sort of short-sigtedness is what lets governments erode the rights of ALL, and it makes cowards of the people because they will have given away all their legal protections.

Our Revolutionary generation must be shocked by what a generation of lambs we have become.

This is the kind of issue that draws the line between traditional conservatives who want less government and the neo-fascists who really only want government to do less for other folks but more to enforce their way of life. The sad thing is that the neofascists thing they are getting prortection for their own "liberty" to live as they want, when they are really selling their own souls, with payment to be demanded at a later date.

that's all true but I thought we lived in such a litigious society that Buford T. Justice would be smater than that.

[Sooner in Tampa]

Everybody sit down.

Hold on tight.





I agree with CSF on this one.

Sorry Hat.:eek: I never thought that I would see the day. :D

[jk the sooner fan]

if you want a "no knock" warrant, all you have to do is put it, and the reason why you need it, in the affidavit asking for the warrant

[Sooner in Tampa]

IF there ever is no exclusionary rule or no "fruit of the poisonous tree," there will be nothing to stop the cops from doing what they want when they want. The adage "power corrupts" applies to the cop on the beat just as much as the emperor, an since we don't have an emperor (yet), we ought to worry about those farther down the chain of command.
This is why the warrant is significant. A judge must be presented with something that would urge him/her to issue the warrant in the first place.


So usmc is safe... for today. But who knows what will be illegal tomorrow? Then what? Or suppose you live in a small town with a sheriff who likes to lean on people just because he doesn't like the way they look? And would you like the cops just dropping by the old castle whenever they want to have a look around "just in case"?
I would not "like" it. I might even tell them that they CANNOT have a look around. Get a warrant! Or I may tell them to look all they want, there ain't sh*t here.


This is the kind of issue that draws the line between traditional conservatives who want less government and the neo-fascists who really only want government to do less for other folks but more to enforce their way of life. The sad thing is that the neofascists thing they are getting prortection for their own "liberty" to live as they want, when they are really selling their own souls, with payment to be demanded at a later date.I want less government. I don't see this as more government, I see this a procedural ruling. On HOW a warrant can be served. The cops are going to have the warrant...what difference does it make if they knock or not?

[usmc-sooner]

OK, I have not read the opinion yet, so I don't really know if it does away with "knock and announce." And usmc rightly notes that the presence of a warrant is significant. So the following mini-rant doesn't pretend to address the decision, but just the general principles that it has invoked.

IF there ever is no exclusionary rule or no "fruit of the poisonous tree," there will be nothing to stop the cops from doing what they want when they want. The adage "power corrupts" applies to the cop on the beat just as much as the emperor, an since we don't have an emperor (yet), we ought to worry about those farther down the chain of command.

So usmc is safe... for today. But who knows what will be illegal tomorrow? Then what? Or suppose you live in a small town with a sheriff who likes to lean on people just because he doesn't like the way they look? And would you like the cops just dropping by the old castle whenever they want to have a look around "just in case"?

Sorry, but that sort of short-sigtedness is what lets governments erode the rights of ALL, and it makes cowards of the people because they will have given away all their legal protections.

Our Revolutionary generation must be shocked by what a generation of lambs we have become.

This is the kind of issue that draws the line between traditional conservatives who want less government and the neo-fascists who really only want government to do less for other folks but more to enforce their way of life. The sad thing is that the neofascists thing they are getting prortection for their own "liberty" to live as they want, when they are really selling their own souls, with payment to be demanded at a later date.


maybe I'm just not that paranoid if the local cops don't like me they still gotta get the judge to sign the warrant. I could always crawl up the sheriff's chain of command if he was getting to far out of hand.

I see this ruling as correcting a mistake. I don't see it as a liberal vs conservative thing.

I also see this as making things safer for cops and criminals. You know knock knock we the cops we have a warrant we'll give you 1 minute to load your guns and were coming in. I'd prefer less shootouts.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Now the dealio is that the police are no longer required to knock or announce themselves when entering a domicile that they have a warrant on...this is along the lines of common sense, why warn someone that you are going to arrest them.

Again, I don't see "activism" in this ruling. I don't see this issue as right vs. left...so it cannot be defined as someone trying to push an agenda.This is the crux of the matter. One jumping to the conclusion that this is some kind of right-wing activism has demonstrated rug-chewing at its finest.

[SoonerInKCMO]

This is the crux of the matter. One jumping to the conclusion that this is some kind of right-wing activism has demonstrated rug-chewing at its finest.

I don't see anyone here jumping to the conclusion that this is some kind of right-wing activism. I just see people questioning why there have been no claims of the court overstepping its bounds like there are when courts make other rulings. Rulings that are similar to this one in the way that they refine or redefine law and only different in that they can be interpreted as 'liberal'.

[GottaHavePride]

Or suppose you live in a small town with a sheriff who likes to lean on people just because he doesn't like the way they look?

Then Rambo kills everyone. I saw that movie. ;)

[mdklatt]

http://www.slate.com/id/2139458/


In the 1995 case Wilson v. Arkansas, the Supreme Court for the first time ruled that at least in principle, the Fourth Amendment requires police to knock and announce themselves before entering a private home. In doing so, the court acknowledged the centuries-old "Castle Doctrine" from English common law, which states that a man has the right to defend his home and his family from intruders. The announcement requirement gives an innocent suspect the opportunity to persuade the police that they've targeted the wrong residence before having his home invaded. It also protects police from being targeted by innocent homeowners who have mistaken them for criminal intruders and those same homeowners from the burden of determining if the armed intruders in their home are police or criminals.

Sounds like a good idea to me.


In fact, in many places the announcement requirement is now treated more like an antiquated ritual than compliance with a suspect's constitutional rights. In 1999, for example, the assistant police chief of El Monte, Calif., explained his department's preferred procedure to the Los Angeles Times: "We do bang on the door and make an announcement—'It's the police'—but it kind of runs together. If you're sitting on the couch, it would be difficult to get to the door before they knock it down."

That comment came in a story about a mistaken raid in which Mario Paz, an innocent man, was shot dead by a raiding SWAT team when he mistook them for criminal intruders and reached for a gun to defend himself.


Oops.

As long as you don't have a gun in you house there's nothing to worry about, right?

[jk the sooner fan]

I don't see anyone here jumping to the conclusion that this is some kind of right-wing activism. I just see people questioning why there have been no claims of the court overstepping its bounds like there are when courts make other rulings. Rulings that are similar to this one in the way that they refine or redefine law and only different in that they can be interpreted as 'liberal'.

it was posted by hatfield..... just sayin

[Sooner in Tampa]

http://www.slate.com/id/2139458/



Sounds like a good idea to me.



Oops.

As long as you don't have a gun in you house there's nothing to worry about, right?While these are good and valid arguments, I would counter with the cases of cops knocking on a door and announcing "it's the police"...they wait while the bad guys 1) flush drugs and bad stuff down the crapper or 2) jet out the back and high tail to someplace that cops are not.

[usmc-sooner]

While these are good and valid arguments, I would counter with the cases of cops knocking on a door and announcing "it's the police"...they wait while the bad guys 1) flush drugs and bad stuff down the crapper or 2) jet out the back and high tail to someplace that cops are not.

3) get themselves ready to shoot

[mdklatt]

While these are good and valid arguments, I would counter with the cases of cops knocking on a door and announcing "it's the police"...they wait while the bad guys 1) flush drugs and bad stuff down the crapper or 2) jet out the back and high tail to someplace that cops are not.


From the same place:


But Wilson didn't eliminate no-knocks. In the same decision, the court recognized three broad exceptions, called "exigent circumstances," to the announcement requirement. The most pertinent of these state that if police believe announcing themselves before entering would present a threat to officer safety, or if they believe a suspect is particularly likely to destroy evidence, they may enter a home without first announcing their presence.
...
In the real world, the exigent-circumstances exceptions have been so broadly interpreted since Wilson, they've overwhelmed the rule. No-knock raids have been justified on the flimsiest of reasons, including that the suspect was a licensed, registered gun owner (NRA, take note!), or that the mere presence of indoor plumbing could be enough to trigger the "destruction of evidence" exception.

[Sooner in Tampa]

3) get themselves ready to shootGood Catch...I forgot that one.

[85Sooner]

I don't think this is judicial activism as much as it is common sense.


I agree, Nothing has changed but the fact that if the police feel people are destroying evidence they can go ahead and come on in. THey have a warrant so whats really the activism that you speak of.

[mdklatt]

I agree, Nothing has changed but the fact that if the police feel people are destroying evidence they can go ahead and come on in. THey have a warrant so whats really the activism that you speak of.

Where's the activism in a judical ruling to bring the Pledge of Allegiance back to it's original state?

[TUSooner]

:
In the 1995 case Wilson v. Arkansas, the Supreme Court for the first time ruled that at least in principle, the Fourth Amendment requires police to knock and announce themselves before entering a private home. In doing so, the court acknowledged the centuries-old "Castle Doctrine" from English common law, which states that a man has the right to defend his home and his family from intruders. The announcement requirement gives an innocent suspect the opportunity to persuade the police that they've targeted the wrong residence before having his home invaded. It also protects police from being targeted by innocent homeowners who have mistaken them for criminal intruders and those same homeowners from the burden of determining if the armed intruders in their home are police or criminals.


Sounds like a good idea to me.




In fact, in many places the announcement requirement is now treated more like an antiquated ritual than compliance with a suspect's constitutional rights. In 1999, for example, the assistant police chief of El Monte, Calif., explained his department's preferred procedure to the Los Angeles Times: "We do bang on the door and make an announcement—'It's the police'—but it kind of runs together. If you're sitting on the couch, it would be difficult to get to the door before they knock it down."

That comment came in a story about a mistaken raid in which Mario Paz, an innocent man, was shot dead by a raiding SWAT team when he mistook them for criminal intruders and reached for a gun to defend himself.



Oops.

As long as you don't have a gun in you house there's nothing to worry about, right?

ymssra...
Yes, I know "hard cases make bad law," but just call me old fashioned. :)

[Hatfield]

it was posted by hatfield..... just sayin
just saying what that you would rather look at the poster than at the thread...because like thinking is hard and stuff?

[Vaevictis]

Based on the summaries I've read, I don't have a real problem with the ruling.

In general, it is my opinion that evidence should not be excluded because of procedural errors on the part of law enforcement; it is my opinion that such errors should be followed up by in-organization disciplinary actions and/or legal actions against the police officers involved (if the offense is serious enough, or the department doesn't take sufficient disciplinary action internally).

Really, the real cluster-f*ck I'm waiting on is for police officers to make an unannounced entry into a home in a place like Texas... and the firearm owning resident opens a can of whoop-*** on the police officers.

According to my understanding, in Texas, if you have a reasonable fear for your home or property, you can legally kill intruders. I'm just waiting for the backlash that goes along with it when the DA is completely unable to charge and/or convict said homeowner because the homeowner had no reasonable way of knowing that these were the police when they busted through the door.

[BeetDigger]

I want to post in this thread. Just because I can.

[soonerscuba]

Since I don't imagine the glory that comes with killing an intruder so much, what I worry about is a smaller detail. The 99.7% rule, which cops trying to be cool will kick down doors for any reason just because it looks like a lot fun, I just fear for the doors. In other news, I'm sure door installation folks are tickled pink about this ruling.

[JohnnyMack]

Really, the real cluster-f*ck I'm waiting on is for police officers to make an unannounced entry into a home in a place like Texas... and the firearm owning resident opens a can of whoop-*** on the police officers.

According to my understanding, in Texas, if you have a reasonable fear for your home or property, you can legally kill intruders. I'm just waiting for the backlash that goes along with it when the DA is completely unable to charge and/or convict said homeowner because the homeowner had no reasonable way of knowing that these were the police when they busted through the door.

Sure they do. The ruling doesn't say they don't have to announce themselves, it says they don't have to wait once they've announced themselves. So instead of:

"POLICE! WE HAVE A WARRANT! OPEN UP!" and giving them 15-20 seconds to arm themselves, run away, whatever now it's:

"POLICE! OPEN UP!" followed by a door getting kicked in.

Once they've announced themselves the onus is on the homeowner, not 5-0.

[mdklatt]

According to my understanding, in Texas, if you have a reasonable fear for your home or property, you can legally kill intruders. I'm just waiting for the backlash that goes along with it when the DA is completely unable to charge and/or convict said homeowner because the homeowner had no reasonable way of knowing that these were the police when they busted through the door.

It's already happened that innocent people have been killed by the police in such situations. That is even more egregious, in my opinion. We are all being penalized because of the actions of criminals.

I've already had enough bull**** run-ins with the Norman police for doing nothing wrong, and now I have to worry about them kicking down my door and putting me in a choke hold because somebody made a mistake? I don't think so. I went to the wrong address many times while delivering pizza; fortunately there weren't any tear gas grenades involved.

[mdklatt]

Once they've announced themselves the onus is on the homeowner, not 5-0.

What if you don't hear them announce themselves? I've seen this stuff go down on COPS and the other police shows. Most of the time, the shout of "Police!" is drowned out the the door being kicked.

What's to stop criminals from yelling "Police!" as they kick your door down? As soon as that starts getting hyped on the local news, Mr. Armed Homeowner is going to start shooting first and asking questions later when somebody breaks into his house--and rightly so. Anything that makes it harder to tell the criminals from the cops is going to be bad from the cops.

[Vaevictis]

"POLICE! WE HAVE A WARRANT! OPEN UP!" and giving them 15-20 seconds to arm themselves, run away, whatever now it's:

"POLICE! OPEN UP!" followed by a door getting kicked in.

Once they've announced themselves the onus is on the homeowner, not 5-0.

The 15-20 seconds gives the homeowner the opportunity to compose him/herself and verify that these are, in fact, police officers, and it gives the police officers the opportunity to repeat the warning.

If I'm in my back bedroom, I may not hear the "POLICE! OPEN UP!" But I will hear the door getting smashed in.

At that point, as far as I know, they're just intruders. In Texas, according to my understanding of the law, that gives me free reign to open up on them.

[1stTimeCaller]

you can open up on intruders in OK as well.

[Scott D]

I really can't wait to hear Jerk's opinion on this ruling.

[Pricetag]

In general, it is my opinion that evidence should not be excluded because of procedural errors on the part of law enforcement;
I understand your opinion here. The idea of a criminal getting off because of a mistake burns me up. But it is absolutely imperative that the authorities go by the book in everything they do. When they don't, someone has to lose. It can't be the citizens. It sucks, and it's not necessarily fair, but who said life was fair?

[sooner_born_1960]

Until the police have announced themselves, they are considered intruders. Hopefully too many of them won't be (justifiably) shot between the time they kick the door down and the time they announce who they are.

[usmc-sooner]

seriously you guys can what if it all day long but it still makes more sense.

If you'd think about it you'd realize the cops can do that without the ruling. Who are you going to believe, the guy with the kiddie porn stash, and 10lbs of heroin, or the cop.

Some of you whine just to hear yourselves whine.

Bottom line don't participate in illegal activities, don't be stupid enough to bring illegal activities to your home and around your families and you don't have to worry about it. If you do I don't feel sorry for your *** when you get worked over by the cops. You want to enjoy the rights and freedoms of this country then abide by the laws (or just sneak across the boarder :D )

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Not to get into an arguement...

I thought this was an very fine line to walk. On one hand, what difference does it make in THIS case. On the other, knocking and announcing oneself was the main reason for breaking from England and affording a right from illegal search and seizures.

Not sure how this will be played out, but does set a very uncomfortable feeling in me. I in no way would support criminals, but what if they got the wrong house announced "Police, Search Warrant" and bash down a door, and the poor guy was on the "terlet" what's he gonna do?

[SCOUT]

Not to get off on too much of a tangeant, but I think this quote ties back to the original question.

It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for himself and Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

I am not a constitutional scholar but I am pretty sure the 4th amendment doesn’t contain the phrase knock-and-announce. In fact I don’t think the constitution announces any such protection anywhere.

I don’t think this decision is an example of judicial activism. In my opinion it is a correction. I think the judiciary has too often extended the constitution and expanded protections not intended. Knock-and-announce constitutional protection, the separation of church and state, and the right to privacy are all examples of this.

Correcting a previous court decision is not judicial activism. Creating new rights or basing decisions on political ideology certainly is.

[jk the sooner fan]

intruders dont normally knock your door down with a battering ram.....unless you're sitting in your easy chair with your pistol at your side, always at the ready, they are going to have the upper hand........once they are inside the door, shouts of POLICE will fill the air.......if you still want to treat them as common intruders by reaching for your gun so you can shoot them, then go right ahead

i like to call it "thinning the herd"

[TheHumanAlphabet]

According to my understanding, in Texas, if you have a reasonable fear for your home or property, you can legally kill intruders. I'm just waiting for the backlash that goes along with it when the DA is completely unable to charge and/or convict said homeowner because the homeowner had no reasonable way of knowing that these were the police when they busted through the door.

Your understanding is correct. In Texas, you are almost expected to stand up and portect your house. Taking out someone who shouldn't be there is lauded highly...

Unfortunately, body armored, heavily armed SWAT crashing in (say on the wrong house) will probably trump a homeowner in t-shirt with a glock.

[usmc-sooner]

intruders dont normally knock your door down with a battering ram.....unless you're sitting in your easy chair with your pistol at your side, always at the ready, they are going to have the upper hand........once they are inside the door, shouts of POLICE will fill the air.......if you still want to treat them as common intruders by reaching for your gun so you can shoot them, then go right ahead

i like to call it "thinning the herd"

your applying way too much common sense here jk

we'd prefer to think that the cops are now all of sudden going to be busting into our houses with erroneous warrants while were in the shower, or on the toilet, or in the bed room. Plus everyone knows we always have a 9mm cocked and locked whilst on the ****ter, or in the shower so of coarse we're going to come running out guns a blazing and get killed by the gung ho cops.


I don't see how some of you live in a constant state of fear. You know how many times the cops have come to my house to serve a warrant? 0 times in 35 years. You know how many times they've busted my door down. That would be a zero as well.

[mdklatt]

Bottom line don't participate in illegal activities, don't be stupid enough to bring illegal activities to your home...

...and don't keep a handgun in your house for protection because the police may have the wrong house, break down your door, and shoot you dead when they see you fumbling for it because you were asleep and didn't hear them announce themselves.

[usmc-sooner]

...and don't keep a handgun in your house for protection because the police may have the wrong house, break down your door, and shoot you dead when they see you fumbling for it because you were asleep and didn't hear them announce themselves.


yeah I know just the other night, the cops kicked down my door in the middle of the night unannounced. You know I'm so groggy I can't look and tell that all those guys with flashlights, wind breaker jackets that had POLICE in big yellow letters on them, with the guns drawn yelling "police don't move" that I still went for my gun, took the safety lock off, or got it out of the locked gun safe (cause if you're not using either-your too dumb to own a gun) loaded a clip in and still tried to raise it up. They almost shot me.

I don't see how you make it from day to day with constant paranoid state of fear you live in.

[mdklatt]

You know how many times the cops have come to my house to serve a warrant?

You know how many times the Norman police have come to my apartment looking for somebody that didn't live there? Twice. Or how many times I've been accused of being truant from Norman High School when I was actually an OU student? Once. Or how many times I've gotten pulled over for nothing at all and the cop gave some bull**** story about my car coming up in the computer as stolen? Once. Or how many times I've been knocked to the ground in an alley and had a gun pointed at me while walking to my car after work? Once. Or how many times a certain other SF poster has been awoken by the OU SWAT team who somehow had no idea he'd be in sleeping in his dorm room at 3 am? Once.

Excuse me for thinking that the police might **** up every now and then.

[usmc-sooner]

You know how many times the Norman police have come to my apartment looking for somebody that didn't live there? Twice. Or how many times I've been accused of being truant from Norman High School when I was actually an OU student? Once. Or how many times I've gotten pulled over for nothing at all and the cop gave some bull**** story about my car coming up in the computer as stolen? Once. Or how many times I've been knocked to the ground in an alley and had a gun pointed at me while walking to my car after work? Once. Or how many times a certain other SF poster has been awoken by the OU SWAT team who somehow had no idea he'd be in sleeping in his dorm room at 3 am? Once.

Excuse me for thinking that the police might **** up every now and then.

so they kicked your door down and you pulled your gat how many times? I'm thinking once you see manhood you won't be so paranoid of the police.

[jk the sooner fan]

...and don't keep a handgun in your house for protection because the police may have the wrong house, break down your door, and shoot you dead when they see you fumbling for it because you were asleep and didn't hear them announce themselves.

oh jeezus, this is just stupid

look, cops want to go home every nite........they have a desire to survive

we're talking about an announcement outside the door......you know "OPEN UP, POLICE, WE HAVE A WARRANT"

mean while, the folks inside are flushing evidence down the toilet....

this ruling doesnt mean that police are going to surreptitiously enter your house and sneak down the hallway and poke you on the shoulder when you arent looking

they are going to scream POLICE like banshees once they're inside, to the point that the bad guy on the ground is going to say "ok i get it, you can shut up now"

[usmc-sooner]

You know how many times the Norman police have come to my apartment looking for somebody that didn't live there? Twice. Or how many times I've been accused of being truant from Norman High School when I was actually an OU student? Once. Or how many times I've gotten pulled over for nothing at all and the cop gave some bull**** story about my car coming up in the computer as stolen? Once. Or how many times I've been knocked to the ground in an alley and had a gun pointed at me while walking to my car after work? Once. Or how many times a certain other SF poster has been awoken by the OU SWAT team who somehow had no idea he'd be in sleeping in his dorm room at 3 am? Once.

Excuse me for thinking that the police might **** up every now and then.

also just to add I went to OU none of that ever happened to me. I even had to spend the weekend in Cleveland County once. Norman is quiet suburbia hollar at me when you've lived in LA, Dallas, Miami where the criminals are little more advanced than a college kid with an attitude and the cops got to make split second decisions every day about using force or not.

[mdklatt]

I'm thinking once you see manhood you won't be so paranoid of the police.


**** off, dip****.


:rolleyes:

[mdklatt]

also just to add I went to OU none of that ever happened to me. I even had to spend the weekend in Cleveland County once. Norman is quiet suburbia hollar at me when you've lived in LA, Dallas, Miami where the criminals are little more advanced than a college kid with an attitude and the cops got to make split second decisions every day about using force or not.


Yep, walking to my car, driving home from work, and eating a cheeseburger at Hardee's. I've got a real attitude problem. :rolleyes:

[usmc-sooner]

**** off, dip****.


:rolleyes:

easy now I might have the cops come over kick the door in on your truant Norman High kid look a like self. You gangsta you :eddie:

[mdklatt]

http://www.mapinc.org/newsdpffl/v99/n926/a08.html


The El Monte Police Department has no evidence that anyone in the family of Mario Paz--a 65-year-old man fatally shot in the back by an El Monte officer during a search of his home Aug. 9--was involved in drug trafficking, nor did officers when they shot their way into the house in the nighttime raid, a senior police official said.


Nothing to see here. Move along, move along.

[1stTimeCaller]

The Norman PD isn't the most professional police organization in the state, fo sho. Maybe years of dealing with college kids will do that to you but there are some ****ty people on that police force. There are also some very good policemen and women in the Norman PD also.

The guy that let you get off with a warning for speeding easily gets trumped by the officer that spits tobacco juice on your foot when you have flip flops on.

[usmc-sooner]

The Norman PD isn't the most professional police organization in the state, fo sho. Maybe years of dealing with college kids will do that to you but there are some ****ty people on that police force. There are also some very good policemen and women in the Norman PD also.

The guy that let you get off with a warning for speeding easily gets trumped by the officer that spits tobacco juice on your foot when you have flip flops on.

yeah they're about to bust in MD's door and force him to draw his gat and sucker him into gun play all because he looks like a truant Norman High kid who eats at Hardees. :D

[mdklatt]

The Norman PD isn't the most professional police organization in the state, fo sho.

I was really impressed with their professionalism when I called to report my car getting broken into and was asked, "What do you want us to do about it?"

:rolleyes:

[TheHumanAlphabet]

awoken by the OU SWAT team.

OU has a SWAT team? Be afraid, very afraid! OUPD is just a hair above Barney Fife IMO...

[1stTimeCaller]

yeah they're about to bust in MD's door and force him to draw his gat and sucker him into gun play all because he looks like a truant Norman High kid who eats at Hardees. :D

I doubt Mr. Paz was worried about the police kicking his door down and shooting him in the back either being as he wasn't doing anything illegal either.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I was really impressed with their professionalism when I called to report my car getting broken into and was asked, "What do you want us to do about it?"

:rolleyes:

Yep, know that feeling...My old roomie got a ticket for parking in front of his house (he owned it) for parking the wrong direction. He went to muni and paid the ticket in pennies. They weren't amused. Neither was he...

[Scott D]

really some folks shouldn't try....clearly the ruling was just and there is absolutely positively no way that the police could ever screw up and have a case of mistaken indentity or mistaken residence that results in a tragic ending for an innocent individual.

on the other hand....it can be viewed as a step in the right direction from our legal system being designed to give every possible benefit of the doubt to the criminal.

[mdklatt]

OU has a SWAT team? Be afraid, very afraid!

It could have been Norman's or something, but I think it was OU's. Maybe the certain SF poster will clarify for us.


OUPD is just a hair above Barney Fife IMO...

Then NPD is somewhere below Barney.

[mdklatt]

our legal system being designed to give every possible benefit of the doubt to the person suspected of a crime.

Fixed.

This is what it's all about. Our legal system is designed around the concept that law enforcment can be just as fallible (or simply corrupt) as any other segment of society, so let's make sure we minimize mistakes. Killing or imprisoning an innocent person is not worth catching any number of criminals.

[BeetDigger]

[nOOb poster/soccer lover]If you people want to talk about cops, go take it to another thread. For once I would like a thread to stay on topic. A topic I love occurs but once every four years and I would like a month off from having a thread go in a tangent direction.[/nOOb poster/soccer lover]


:D

[GrapevineSooner]

As long as the police announce themselves prior to entering my home and as they are in the process of entering my home, I've got no problem with them not knocking and thus giving me a 10-15 second notification.

[usmc-sooner]

[nOOb poster/soccer lover]If you people want to talk about cops, go take it to another thread. For once I would like a thread to stay on topic. A topic I love occurs but once every four years and I would like a month off from having a thread go in a tangent direction.[/nOOb poster/soccer lover]


:D

well if they have no point, they have to go off on a tangent.

Look if all of sudden there tons of innocent people getting there doors busted down and shot while reaching for their guns. Then maybe I'll change my mind.

But common sense says not much of anything will change. Will some mistakes get made, yeah no doubt but I doubt the mistakes won't be any different than before this ruling.

Hell I've been all over, sometimes in places where we weren't welcome or well liked and I've never had anything like this happen. So I doubt the Norman Gastapo is going to go nuts with their new found license to kill.

Like jk has pointed out, the scenario would have to be someone who sits around his house with his weapon cocked and ready. If you're sitting around your house with a loaded and cocked weapon waiting for someone to break in, you got bigger problems than the police getting the wrong address on an arrest warrant.

Another thing that I mentioned earlier also if you have a firearm in the house, it should be put up or have a child lock on it. Most criminals are going to sneak in, not as jk put knock the door down and start screaming to alert you of their presence. If you've got a locked and cocked weapon just sitting around your too stupid to own a gun.

[Pricetag]

Look if all of sudden there tons of innocent people getting there doors busted down and shot while reaching for their guns. Then maybe I'll change my mind.


What if just one person got his/her door busted down and was shot?



Like jk has pointed out, the scenario would have to be someone who sits around his house with his weapon cocked and ready. If you're sitting around your house with a loaded and cocked weapon waiting for someone to break in, you got bigger problems than the police getting the wrong address on an arrest warrant.

Yeah, not many people just sit around like that, but if someone is asleep, then all bets are off. Many folks don't come up gracefully when suddenly awakened, especially by the sound of their door being broken in.

If forced to wake up my dad, I keep my distance. He'll come up swinging if you don't wake him just right. He doesn't mean anything, it just happens. Thankfully, he doesn't keep his gun by his bed, but I know people who do.

[jk the sooner fan]

the rule on this "ruling" is that cops are now going to get a time advantage over the bad guys, and it will increase the safety of the officers....and maybe save a life or two

the exception will be the "way far out wacked out" scenarios that mklatt would like us to believe happens everyday all over the place

[jk the sooner fan]

What if just one person got his/her door busted down and was shot?


Yeah, not many people just sit around like that, but if someone is asleep, then all bets are off. Many folks don't come up gracefully when suddenly awakened, especially by the sound of their door being broken in.

If forced to wake up my dad, I keep my distance. He'll come up swinging if you don't wake him just right. He doesn't mean anything, it just happens. Thankfully, he doesn't keep his gun by his bed, but I know people who do.

if i'm asleep and you're breaking into my house, the noises are MUCH different than that of an entry team.......if you cant tell the difference, then you deserve to be "thinned" of your herd

in my groggiest of sleep, i can hear a noise that causes me to get up and investigate...my pistol goes with me, if i catch an intruder rooting around, he's going to get the full wheel

if i get up and catch a police entry team, i'm going to assume the prone position and be their bitch until they tell me otherwise

[usmc-sooner]

[QUOTE=Pricetag]What if just one person got his/her door busted down and was shot?

I'm sure it's happened before and it will happen after, just one of those sad facts of life.

[jk the sooner fan]

What if just one person got his/her door busted down and was shot?



the Utopian Police Department is the only agency that doesnt have to worry about situations like this

the rest of us have to deal with it

[usmc-sooner]

Yeah, not many people just sit around like that, but if someone is asleep, then all bets are off. Many folks don't come up gracefully when suddenly awakened, especially by the sound of their door being broken in.

If forced to wake up my dad, I keep my distance. He'll come up swinging if you don't wake him just right. He doesn't mean anything, it just happens. Thankfully, he doesn't keep his gun by his bed, but I know people who do.

then these people need to realize that's how they are not keep a loaded gun by their bed. There is no reason to keep a loaded weapon around you while you sleep unless your at war. The chances are much greater that you'll shoot a loved one or yourself on accident than your going to wake up and shoot a burglar or a team of cops coming to serve a warrant.

That's the best way I can put it. It's common sense. I don't think they'll be a huge increase in innocent people shot by cops.

[usmc-sooner]

the Utopian Police Department is the only agency that doesnt have to worry about situations like this

the rest of us have to deal with it


that was Pricetag's question

I was trying to highlight his quote and answer it.

Basically I was saying it has happened before and it will happen again and that you can't base your whole policy off of fear of making a mistake. If that was the case we'd just call all criminals and ask them to turn themselves in.

[jk the sooner fan]

that was Pricetag's question

I was trying to highlight his quote and answer it.

Basically I was saying it has happened before and it will happen again and that you can't base your whole policy off of fear of making a mistake. If that was the case we'd just call all criminals and ask them to turn themselves in.

yeah i knew it was his, i just used your post!

[BeetDigger]

well if they have no point, they have to go off on a tangent.

Look if all of sudden there tons of innocent people getting there doors busted down and shot while reaching for their guns. Then maybe I'll change my mind.

But common sense says not much of anything will change. Will some mistakes get made, yeah no doubt but I doubt the mistakes won't be any different than before this ruling.

Hell I've been all over, sometimes in places where we weren't welcome or well liked and I've never had anything like this happen. So I doubt the Norman Gastapo is going to go nuts with their new found license to kill.

Like jk has pointed out, the scenario would have to be someone who sits around his house with his weapon cocked and ready. If you're sitting around your house with a loaded and cocked weapon waiting for someone to break in, you got bigger problems than the police getting the wrong address on an arrest warrant.

Another thing that I mentioned earlier also if you have a firearm in the house, it should be put up or have a child lock on it. Most criminals are going to sneak in, not as jk put knock the door down and start screaming to alert you of their presence. If you've got a locked and cocked weapon just sitting around your too stupid to own a gun.


I was kidding. I have no problem with you folks taking these threads in any direction you see fit. I had a couple of nOObs get bent out of shape in another thread because I didn't stay on topic. I think the warden just gave them computer privileges so their misunderstanding in how the threads on this board work is not surprising. They don't post to frequently, I surmise the delays are caused by them sodomizing each other. :D

[KABOOKIE]

if i'm asleep and you're breaking into my house, the noises are MUCH different than that of an entry team.......if you cant tell the difference, then you deserve to be "thinned" of your herd

in my groggiest of sleep, i can hear a noise that causes me to get up and investigate...my pistol goes with me, if i catch an intruder rooting around, he's going to get the full wheel

if i get up and catch a police entry team, i'm going to assume the prone position and be their bitch until they tell me otherwise


Not that I agree/disagree with the ruling but, in my town if you greet the Deputy Deweys with a hand gun, they'd shoot you D.E.D before you could get on the ground and be their bitch.

[usmc-sooner]

Not that I agree/disagree with the ruling but, in my town if you greet the Deputy Deweys with a hand gun, they'd shoot you D.E.D before you could get on the ground and be their bitch.

come on now you're a Marine you can handle Deputy Dewey.

Move out the hood :D

[jk the sooner fan]

Not that I agree/disagree with the ruling but, in my town if you greet the Deputy Deweys with a hand gun, they'd shoot you D.E.D before you could get on the ground and be their bitch.


well that was kind of my point

i think any department is going to put you in the fetal position if you come at them with a gun......but during the time it took you to jump out of bed, put on your boxers, grab your gun, you've heard the shouts of POLICE a dozen times

so as you're grabbing that gun, you can either put it down or meet your maker

[1stTimeCaller]

you sleep nekkid?

groovy!!!!!

[jk the sooner fan]

no i sleep in leopard skin bikinis but i'll be damned if i'm going to be filmed on cops in them

[KABOOKIE]

come on now you're a Marine you can handle Deputy Dewey.

Move out the hood :D

No, no. Cops that patrol the hood have actually seen guns. The cops around mid-America-apple-pie-country write speeding tickets all day and shoot anyone carrying a gun. ;)

[Vaevictis]

Most criminals are going to sneak in, not as jk put knock the door down and start screaming to alert you of their presence.

Most, yes, but there are enough cases of home invasion that it's now something a homeowner has to be afraid of when some unknown individual busts into your house. There are even cases of such home invaders impersonating police officers.


Unfortunately, body armored, heavily armed SWAT crashing in (say on the wrong house) will probably trump a homeowner in t-shirt with a glock.

Yeah, the SWAT team almost certainly wins, but it doesn't necessarily win without:
1. Killing the homeowner.
2. Taking casualties of its own.

And remember, most cops -- even on raids -- aren't wearing class III or IV body armor unless they're expecting heavy resistance. Class III-A (and below) -- which is what most police officers typically wear -- just straight up won't stop most non-.22 FMJ rifle rounds (or, iirc, shotgun slugs).

[Vaevictis]

But it is absolutely imperative that the authorities go by the book in everything they do. When they don't, someone has to lose. It can't be the citizens. It sucks, and it's not necessarily fair, but who said life was fair?

Ah, but the citizens *do* lose when the evidence is tossed; it's the criminals that win. The cops lose, and the "people" lose.

Personally, I'm for tossing out the laws that exclude evidence based on valid evidence gained illegally. Conversely, I am also for criminal prosecution of police who gain that evidence illegally. I think that's a fair balance.

[usmc-sooner]

Most, yes, but there are enough cases of home invasion that it's now something a homeowner has to be afraid of when some unknown individual busts into your house. There are even cases of such home invaders impersonating police officers.


Right now we live in one of the safest times in the US. Violent crime has decreased over the last 30 years. It's the media and there constantly wanting to create this state of fear. Fear of crime, global warming, terrrorists, high gas prices, blah blah blah

Check out the stats on violent crime in the US from 1970-2000
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm


Also read the book State of Fear by Micheal Crichton it's fiction but it lists a lots of scientific studies in reference that say there is no global warming taking place.

[Hamhock]

You know how many times the Norman police have come to my apartment looking for somebody that didn't live there? Twice. Or how many times I've been accused of being truant from Norman High School when I was actually an OU student? Once. Or how many times I've gotten pulled over for nothing at all and the cop gave some bull**** story about my car coming up in the computer as stolen? Once. Or how many times I've been knocked to the ground in an alley and had a gun pointed at me while walking to my car after work? Once. Or how many times a certain other SF poster has been awoken by the OU SWAT team who somehow had no idea he'd be in sleeping in his dorm room at 3 am? Once.

Excuse me for thinking that the police might **** up every now and then.


Part of the problem in your analysis is that you are cornfusing OU campus police with real police.

[SoonerInKCMO]

Also read the book State of Fear by Micheal Crichton it's fiction but it lists a lots of scientific studies in reference that say there is no global warming taking place.

Uh-oh... you just bought us five more pages of this thread. :D

[Sooner24]

what I gathered from reading the article is that if the cops have a warrant they don't have to announce or wait 15-20 seconds after knocking. Why isn't that reasonable? Should they wait until the perp has flushed all of his coke down the toilet? How long do you think they should wait? 15 seconds? 15 minutes? an hour? a day?

Sometimes you just can't flush fast enough. :D


By Marsha Miller
News Editor
Web posted June 7, 2006
Two Ardmore men, who apparently attempted to dump their cocaine stash in the city's sewer system, were arrested Wednesday morning when narcotics officers retrieved evidence of their suspected drug dealing business from a toilet at their residence.

Thomas J. Hamilton, 25, and Leroy J. Hamilton, 18, were arrested by Ardmore Police Department Narcotics officers and District Attorney Task Force agents. The duo were taken into custody without incident at a residence located at 413 N. Washington Street. They were booked into the Carter County Detention Center on pending charges of trafficking cocaine, maintaining a dwelling for the use or sale of controlled dangerous substance, destruction of evidence and obstruction of officers.

Lt. Eric Hamblin, APD Criminal Investigation Division, said the pair became the targets of an investigation after APD narcotics officers received information concerning possible drug activity in the neighborhood. The early morning investigation led to the mid-morning execution of a search warrant.

The pending destruction of evidence and obstructing officers charges were apparently the result of an effort to dispose of the drug while officers awaited a judicial stamp of approval on the search warrant. But while a substantial amount of suspected cocaine was successfully flushed, Hamilton said a large quantity of the illegal drug became lodged in the plumbing and officers were able to retrieve it. The search warrant also yielded marijuana.

Charges are expected to be filed against the men within the next few days.

Hamilton said no additional arrests in connection with the case are anticipated.

[1stTimeCaller]

Part of the problem in your analysis is that you are cornfusing OU campus police with real police.

I lived in Norman for about 6 years. In my limited experience I'd say that the OUPD is a more professional PD than the Norman PD.

[Pricetag]

Ah, but the citizens *do* lose when the evidence is tossed; it's the criminals that win. The cops lose, and the "people" lose.

Personally, I'm for tossing out the laws that exclude evidence based on valid evidence gained illegally. Conversely, I am also for criminal prosecution of police who gain that evidence illegally. I think that's a fair balance.
Okay, you're right on your first point. I have a real problem with "valid" and "gained illegally" in the same sentence, though. It's an oxymoron, no?

[usmc-sooner]

Uh-oh... you just bought us five more pages of this thread. :D


oh no

I was just trying to make a quick description of the book but it brings up some really good points about how all these emergencies and fears keep people stupid as to what is really going on.

[Vaevictis]

You're completely missing the point. It has nothing to whether or not the perception is based on reality; what matters is the *perception*.

The Texas home defense law -- and most home defense laws -- according to my understanding, place emphasis on the state of mind of the home owner, not the reality of the situation. In most states, if the homeowner fears for his or her life, then they're justified in responding with deadly force. In Texas, they need only fear for their *property*.

I don't know about you, but a bunch of armed dudes rushing into my home does that, especially if I have absolutely no time to evaluate the situation. The knock-and-wait gives me that time. Rushing in doesn't.

IMO, the raid without a knock and wait announcement is totally legal (assuming a valid warrant), and I don't have a problem with that. I just think it's bad policy.

[GhostOfJAS]

Also read the book State of Fear by Micheal Crichton it's fiction but it lists a lots of scientific studies in reference that say there is no global warming taking place.

I work in the business, and I can assure you no such scientific papers exist - at least that have not been debunked.

[Vaevictis]

Okay, you're right on your first point. I have a real problem with "valid" and "gained illegally" in the same sentence, though. It's an oxymoron, no?

From a legal point of view, yeah. But I'm not necessarily talking legal point of view here; real evidence of a crime is "valid" evidence, even if it can't be used in a court of law, if you take my meaning.

[SoonerInKCMO]

oh no

I was just trying to make a quick description of the book but it brings up some really good points about how all these emergencies and fears keep people stupid as to what is really going on.

You know, if we really wanted to get this thread going, I'd say something about using a Crichton novel as a reference for discussing scientific stuff is like using 'The DaVinci Code' as a reference for discussing lies and deceit of the Catholic Church. :D

[Vaevictis]

And as far as giving them time to flush the evidence, if that's a concern just shut off the water. Let's not be stupid here ;)

[Pricetag]

From a legal point of view, yeah. But I'm not necessarily talking legal point of view here; real evidence of a crime is "valid" evidence, even if it can't be used in a court of law, if you take my meaning.
I get what you're saying, but there are rules. There have to be rules.

[usmc-sooner]

You're completely missing the point. It has nothing to whether or not the perception is based on reality; what matters is the *perception*.

The Texas home defense law -- and most home defense laws -- according to my understanding, place emphasis on the state of mind of the home owner, not the reality of the situation. In most states, if the homeowner fears for his or her life, then they're justified in responding with deadly force. In Texas, they need only fear for their *property*.

I don't know about you, but a bunch of armed dudes rushing into my home does that, especially if I have absolutely no time to evaluate the situation. The knock-and-wait gives me that time. Rushing in doesn't.

IMO, the raid without a knock and wait announcement is totally legal (assuming a valid warrant), and I don't have with that. I just think it's bad policy.

So if a bunch of armed cops yelling police enter your house your going to go for your gun.

And no, no matter what you've been told, you can't shoot anyone coming into your house. You have to meet force with equal force. If a crack head sneaks though your window because he's freezing, you catch him sitting there just freezing no weapon no threat, you can't empty the clip in him. I mean come on think, you go blasting at anything you don't need a gun. It could be a neighbors kid that comes running over, could be a mother who just saw her kid get run over on his bike. Could be a drunk HS kid who isn't thinking straight. I don't care what you've been told you cant John Wayne anyone who comes in your house.
You guys are paranoid.

[Vaevictis]

I get what you're saying, but there are rules. There have to be rules.

I agree that there have to be rules, I just think that the rules as they exist are wrong. I just think that releasing a criminal on the public at large is not the correct remedy to malfeasance on the government's part; the correct remedy is to punish the people responsible for it.

[usmc-sooner]

You know, if we really wanted to get this thread going, I'd say something about using a Crichton novel as a reference for discussing scientific stuff is like using 'The DaVinci Code' as a reference for discussing lies and deceit of the Catholic Church. :D

pretty much basically 2 books of fiction. My point is that at least in the Crichton book he references real studies, gives you the names of the scientist and the periodicals they were published in and gives you the choice to read it or not. All I was saying it brings up a few good points that make you think.

[Hamhock]

I lived in Norman for about 6 years. In my limited experience I'd say that the OUPD is a more professional PD than the Norman PD.


I'm sure there are fine folks on both.

I had my apartment ransacked by OUPD.

But, now that I think about it, I deserved it. :texan:

[Vaevictis]

And no, no matter what you've been told, you can't shoot anyone coming into your house. You have to meet force with equal force.

That's the general "common law" in the USA. However, certain locales have enacted by statute other, more permissive laws:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

You might also want to read Texas Penal Code, Chapter 9, Subchapters C and D. It essentially lists a whole slew of cases -- many not involving life-threatening crimes -- where response by deadly force is totally legal. One of which is, essentially, shooting anyone who you think is in the commission of a property crime at night (home invasion definately counts), another of which, essentially, is shooting anyone who you think is about to commit a violent crime on your person, life threatening or not.

That said, a bunch of people invading your home warrants response by deadly force.

[mdklatt]

Part of the problem in your analysis is that you are cornfusing OU campus police with real police.

Nope. All except the SWAT team incident (which didn't happen to me) were NPD. And did I mention how put out they seemed to be when I had to the nerve to try to file a report because my car had been broken into?

OUPD >> NPD

[Sooner24]

how many of you who do not break the law are seriously freaking worried about Johnny Law busting down your door? pppffffftttt.

Well dolemitesooner might have to worry when he is bootlegging copies of X-Men 3. :eek:

[Sooner24]

You know how many times the Norman police have come to my apartment looking for somebody that didn't live there? Twice. Or how many times I've been accused of being truant from Norman High School when I was actually an OU student? Once. Or how many times I've gotten pulled over for nothing at all and the cop gave some bull**** story about my car coming up in the computer as stolen? Once. Or how many times I've been knocked to the ground in an alley and had a gun pointed at me while walking to my car after work? Once. Or how many times a certain other SF poster has been awoken by the OU SWAT team who somehow had no idea he'd be in sleeping in his dorm room at 3 am? Once.

Excuse me for thinking that the police might **** up every now and then.

It must suck to be you.

[Jerk]

I really can't wait to hear Jerk's opinion on this ruling.

I don't know. I'm just sitting here after 12 hours of work, plus mowing the yard, trying to cool off, and absorb this thread.

I've always wondered about these scenarios.

Late at night, door gets kicked in, you think it's a home invasion and arm yourself, 3 or 4 dudes start coming through the door and you unload a 20 round mag of 7.62mm at them. Oops! They are cops who got the wrong address. Does that mean i get to go to 'pound me in the arse' prison? (assuming I survived?)

There are home invasions all the time.

The average gunfight last less than 2 seconds. Not alot of time to think.

All you liberals here so concerned about 'rights' need to look into the BATFE and their activities. I like cops, but not them. Did you know that the Senate found that 80% of the people they go after had no criminal intention?

[Scott D]

I'm just curious how things would play out if there was a situation here like the one in London last week.

[Getem]

Cops should just do some Jack Bauer sh*t like knock and announce at the door, then smash in through the wall while the crook aims at the door.

[usmc-sooner]

I work in the business, and I can assure you no such scientific papers exist - at least that have not been debunked.

must no be keeping up because they were talking to some prominent scientist on the The Learning Channel or Discovery Channel who brought them up.
This scientist was claiming just the opposite and he had his facts and presented them and said he could probably debunk most global warming claims.

I've also got a list of over 100 published papers.

tempature data with over 7 different government or school or laboratory websites.

It's a cooked up scam.

[mdklatt]

It's a cooked up scam.

Two words: Melting. Glaciers.

[usmc-sooner]

Two words: Melting. Glaciers.

really how many glaciers are there and how many are melting how many are growing?

The scientist on TLC or Disc Ch. shot this one down right off the bat. He says usually someone who has no clue about the subject brings this up.

got two more words for me.

[Vaevictis]

Red Alert! Red Alert! Threadjack in progress! All crew! General quarters!

[usmc-sooner]

well I just thought if he was going to use melting Glaciers as proof he'd know how many there were and how many have been studied, how many are melting how many were growing.


thread jacked

[jk the sooner fan]

what caused the ice age to melt before we had aerosol cans? or is that no longer to blame for the hole in the ozone which is causing the global warming

or could it be that temps are higher because we're a teensy bit closer to the sun?

[usmc-sooner]

the glacier used most often erroneously by these nuts is Kilimanjaro which has been rapidly melting since the 1800's long before global warming. Satellite measurements show no warming trend at the altitude of the Kilimanjaro Glacier.
Journal of Glaciology 45 (2000): 456-2

and in the International Journal of Climatology 24: (2004): 329-39 says that "although Kilimanjaro and its vanishing glaciers have become an "icon of global warmin..but processes other than air temperature control the ice recession... A drastic drop in atmospheri moisture at the end of the 19th century and the ensuing drier climat conditions are likely forcing glacier retreat."

[49r]

HOLY CHRIST YOU PEOPLE ARE INSANE!!!

[Big Red Ron]

Two words: Melting. Glaciers.How many Ice ages have occured on earth?

[SCOUT]

That's the general "common law" in the USA. However, certain locales have enacted by statute other, more permissive laws:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

You might also want to read Texas Penal Code, Chapter 9, Subchapters C and D. It essentially lists a whole slew of cases -- many not involving life-threatening crimes -- where response by deadly force is totally legal. One of which is, essentially, shooting anyone who you think is in the commission of a property crime at night (home invasion definately counts), another of which, essentially, is shooting anyone who you think is about to commit a violent crime on your person, life threatening or not.

That said, a bunch of people invading your home warrants response by deadly force.

I think you are blurring what is legal and what is right. My Parents have a neighbor whose son is autistic. Right after they moved in my Father awoke with this kid standing over him. He had crawled in through a doggy door and was just looking around.

It would have been legal for my Dad to kill him. However, it wouldn't have been right.

If you lack the ability to control killing people without understanding the circumstances then you probably should stick with a golf club or axe handle for home defense.

I also find it interesting that the case has been made repeatedly that every step possible should be taken to protect an innocent bystander. I agree with this in theory but at what expense to the Police? Would we agree that a warrant is at least generally issued for the right address? If the answer is yes, then we are protecting a far greater number of police than we are endangering innocents.

There will never be a perfect scenario. Using hyperbole in cases like this distorts the issue.

Oh and global warming is the next monkey pox, sars, ebola, bird flu, small pox, mumps, or west nile virus. It seems people need a catastrophe to worry about or they just aren't happy.

[mdklatt]

what caused the ice age to melt before we had aerosol cans? or is that no longer to blame for the hole in the ozone which is causing the global warming


WTF are you talking about? Ozone levels have nothing to do with it.




or could it be that temps are higher because we're a teensy bit closer to the sun?

Could be. Are we?

[mdklatt]

really how many glaciers are there and how many are melting how many are growing?

Well why don't you tell us, usmc-sooner, Ph.D.


http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html

[Octavian]

pfft...just more junk science from NASA

:rolleyes:

[mdklatt]

Journal of Glaciology 45 (2000): 456-2

This citation is wrong. Is the year 1999?



A drastic drop in atmospheri moisture at the end of the 19th century and the ensuing drier climat conditions are likely forcing glacier retreat.

What caused the drop in moisture? I assume this only applies to Kilamanjaro. What about melting ice everywhere else?

[mdklatt]

From usmc-sooner's buddies at the Journal of Glaciology:

Five decades of shrinkage of July 1st glacier, Qilian Shan, China (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2006/00000052/00000176/art00002)



A survey of July 1st glacier, Qilian Shan, China, was carried out in 2002. Previously, the glacier's boundary had been recorded in 1956, and further research had been carried out in the mid-1970s and 1980s. Our survey reveals that area shrinkage and surface lowering have accelerated in the past 15 years. ... Apart from the effect of glacier ice redistribution, our analysis reveals quantitatively that the recent accelerated glacier shrinkage has been caused by increasing temperature.

Mass changes of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and shelves and contributions to sea-level rise: 1992–2002 (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2005/00000051/00000175/art00001)



The Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins (−42 ± 2 Gt a−1 below the equilibrium-line altitude (ELA)) and growing inland (+53 ± 2 Gt a−1 above the ELA) with a small overall mass gain (+11 ± 3 Gt a−1; −0.03 mm a−1 SLE (sea-level equivalent)). ... Thinning at the margins of the Greenland ice sheet and growth at higher elevations is an expected response to increasing temperatures and precipitation in a warming climate.

[Vaevictis]

I think you are blurring what is legal and what is right.

I think you are confusing what is relevant with what is not. Or what I am saying with what I am not, I'm not sure which. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, what I'm saying is that I'm waiting for the big fat political clusterf*ck that's going to happen if the following scenario occurs:

1. Police raid a house without a knock-and-wait (which I suspect will become more common now that there's no risk of evidence tossing)
2. Suspects in the house shoot up the raiding police.
3. This occurs in a state with a stand your ground law, or a state with Texas-like property protection laws, and the DA can't prosecute them for killing the police, because such laws typically depend on the state of mind of the "defender". ie, if the "defender" can show reasonably that s/he might have not known the intruders were police and thought that they were criminals.


If the answer is yes, then we are protecting a far greater number of police than we are endangering innocents.

It's the police's job to take those risks on *behalf* of the innocent people. Putting the people's safety at greater risk in order to reduce the police's risk is, IMO, very close to dereliction of duty.

(now, I must admit that at a certain point, the police must protect themselves first, that is just reality. In general, however, I prefer policy to protect civilians first and police second, and leave the situational tactics up to the police -- who then have to justify their actions under review)

[mdklatt]

How many Ice ages have occured on earth?

What the hell does this have to with anything?

[soonerbub]

So basically what everyone's saying is glaciers no longer have 4th amendment protection and can melt without announcement :texan: :twinkies: :P

[usmc-sooner]

heh
idiots looking for a cause

contact md

[usmc-sooner]

What the hell does this have to with anything?

:D


what a moron:texan:

[Jerk]

Whether global warming is true or not, it's the perfect excuse for more government and less freedom. You think these elites at the UN or Washington will give up their jets and limos after they've limited your transportation to a bicycle, or at the most an electric "car"? F*** no they won't. It's just another reason to control people.

And remember, there was an article in April of 1975 Newsweek that stated "most scientists agree" that the earth will go into another ice age in 30 years.

Noted Climatologist Ted Danson back in the 1980's said we'd all be dead in 10 years because the ocean was heating up.

Sorry, libs....I don't buy it.

[Jerk]

Read this sh** and tell me it doesn't sound like the same old crap we hear today:

April 28, 1975 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060402-112828-5298r.htm)

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I work in the business, and I can assure you no such scientific papers exist - at least that have not been debunked.

I have a degree in the business.

I have worked in the business.

And I currently work in a business that may or may not affect the climate.

I do not believe that any self-respecting scientists can definitively say whether human activity has changed the climate. We know too little about historical aspects of the climate, the computer models are at best guesses at what may happen with input that is at best incomplete and not a full numerical model, no account is made for the cyclic nature of solar radiation and sunspot activity, and little has been said regarding the high CO2 levels identified during the "Snowball Earth" event.

While I do not remove the theory that humans may be affecting the world in which we live, no one can say with any scientific certainty that human activity is the sole cause and not a function of a natural cyclical aspect of the climate system of the earth. Anyone who says otherwise has drunk the kool-aid of junk science...

[Okla-homey]

Oh and global warming is the next monkey pox, sars, ebola, bird flu, small pox, mumps, or west nile virus. It seems people need a catastrophe to worry about or they just aren't happy.

I agree, but you forgot to include "second-hand smoke" among the "deadly killers" cooked-up as unsubstantiated fear fodder.;)

[mdklatt]

:D


what a moron:texan:

Hey smartass, what do you for a living?

Care to make a serious response to anything I posted? You post an abstract of one article that says the Kilamanjaro glacier isn't melting due to increased temperatures (which says nothing about global warming), but I was able to find two articles in five minutes that do find glacier melt due to higher temperatures. I can't say that I've seen the Discovery Channel program you're talking about, but I can imagine the "expert" you're talking about is very popular with pop science TV show producers because he's a contrarian. In the interest of "balance", shows like that attempt to counter prevailing theory with whatever kook they can find who will disagree on camera. It's good TV.

[mdklatt]

While I do not remove the theory that humans may be affecting the world in which we live, no one can say with any scientific certainty that human activity is the sole cause and not a function of a natural cyclical aspect of the climate system of the earth. Anyone who says otherwise has drunk the kool-aid of junk science...

But the moonbats in this thread even deny that a global warming is taking place right now. But that one guy on that one TV show said so, so it must be true. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we know that CO2 levels have been rising, we know that human activity produces CO2, but let's refuse to add 1 + 1 + 1 and acknowledge that just maybe we have something to climate change. Let's ignore the entire state of climate research and listen to Rush Limbaugh when he tells us not to worry, and that we can keep pumping chemicals into the environment for ever and ever without any consequences. After all, who are you going believe? People with Ph.Ds in atmospheric science or poltical pundits?

JFC.

[usmc-sooner]

Hey smartass, what do you for a living?

Care to make a serious response to anything I posted? You post an abstract of one article that says the Kilamanjaro glacier isn't melting due to increased temperatures (which says nothing about global warming), but I was able to find two articles in five minutes that do find glacier melt due to higher temperatures. I can't say that I've seen the Discovery Channel program you're talking about, but I can imagine the "expert" you're talking about is very popular with pop science TV show producers because he's a contrarian. In the interest of "balance", shows like that attempt to counter prevailing theory with whatever kook they can find who will disagree on camera. It's good TV.


hmmm what do I do for a living? I guess your probably not the brightest bulb in the pack. Maybe if my handle was DentistSooner or lawyersooner or engineersooner the light would go off in your head.

Even though I feel dumb for responding to you because you can probably google and find something different. The scientist on TV said there was no proof at all of global warming, several theories but no positive proof. You said my source was no good I just double and triple checked it. It works for me. Here are the facts no matter what you read from your liberal sources. There has been no warming (from satellite measurements) at the altitude of Kilamanjaro glacier whatsoever. Now I might not be Einstein but if the temperature hasn't increased that might be an indication of I don't know well global warming. The biggest melt off on that glacier was in the 1800's. Also as I've stated it's a popular liberal thing to claim global warming but the climate shifted there in the 1800's to less rain. That and deforestization is the main cause according to anyone that has enough sense to realize global warming wasn't happening in the 1800's if it was it wasn't because of us.

BTW there are 160,000 glaciers in the world only about 67,000 have been inventoried and out of those only a few have actually been studied. Some are growing some are melting.

So keep on schooling me braniac.

[mdklatt]

hmmm what do I do for a living? I guess your probably not the brightest bulb in the pack. Maybe if my handle was DentistSooner or lawyersooner or engineersooner the light would go off in your head.


I figured since you were going to lecture all of us about climate change you must have a background in climatology or a related field. When you started throwing journal article references out there I figured maybe you had done a comprehensive literature review of the subject. Basically I didn't want to just assume that you in fact don't know **** about atmospheric science, statistics, computer modelling, oceanography, or any of the other disciplines involved in climate studies.




The scientist on TV said there was no proof at all of global warming, several theories but no positive proof.


One guy? On a TV show? Well it must be true then.




You said my source was no good I just double and triple checked it. It works for me.



Originally Posted by usmc-sooner
Journal of Glaciology 45 (2000): 456-2



Journal of Glaciology (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog)


Volume 46
Number 155, December 2000
Number 154, June 2000
Number 153, March 2000
Number 152, January 2000


You say volume 45 of JoG covers the year 2000. JoG says volume 46 of covers the year 2000. Somebody is mistaken. I was unable to find the article you were talking about; 1999 (i.e. the real volume 45) is not available online.




Here are the facts no matter what you read from your liberal sources.


Liberal sources? You mean the Journal of Glaciology, the same journal you referenced? You found one example where glacial mass wasn't decreasing due to a temperature increase, and I found two counterexamples within five minutes from the same journal. Well? Huh? Care to comment on that, or are you just going come up with another smart-*** remark?



There has been no warming (from satellite measurements) at the altitude of Kilamanjaro glacier whatsoever. Now I might not be Einstein but if the temperature hasn't increased that might be an indication of I don't know well global warming. The biggest melt off on that glacier was in the 1800's.


One isolated point on the planet--you do know what "global" means, right? How far back do you think we have satellite temperature measurements of Kilamanjaro? How accurate do you think those meaurements are? Certainly you must have some background in remote sensing to speak on the topic with such authority.



Also as I've stated it's a popular liberal thing to claim global warming but the climate shifted there in the 1800's to less rain. That and deforestization is the main cause according to anyone that has enough sense to realize global warming wasn't happening in the 1800's if it was it wasn't because of us.


When did the Industrial Revolution begin? The early 1800's maybe? Our current period of global warming coincides with a dramatic increases in manmade emissions CO2, a known greenhouse gas--nothing to see here, folks. Move along, move along.




BTW there are 160,000 glaciers in the world only about 67,000 have been inventoried and out of those only a few have actually been studied. Some are growing some are melting.


Well then it's a good thing we have corroborating evidence other than glacial melt, isn't it?

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html


Climatologists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City noted that the highest global annual average surface temperature in more than a century was recorded in their analysis for the 2005 calendar.
...
The result indicates that a strong underlying warming trend is continuing. Global warming since the middle 1970s is now about 0.6 degrees Celsius (C) or about 1 degree Fahrenheit (F). Total warming in the past century is about 0.8° C or about 1.4° F.

"The five warmest years over the last century occurred in the last eight years," said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS. They stack up as follows: the warmest was 2005, then 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004.


Now keep in mind that this from NASA, and since they have a connection to Hollywood through movies like Apollo 13 and The Right Stuff, feel free to dismiss this as a liberal rant. :rolleyes:




So keep on schooling me braniac.

I'll try, Forrest. Let's see, global temperatures have warmed by 1.4 F over the past century...I wonder if there's a term for that phenomenon? What should we call it when we observe warming on a global scale? It's at the tip of my tongue....

[1stTimeCaller]

Whoa!!! We're talking about global warming now? Great job SO Great. Job.

[jk the sooner fan]

wow, one.four degree's over the last century

we should all just slit our wrists now and put an end to our impending doom

[mdklatt]

wow, one.four degree's over the last century


Feel free to explain to us why you feel this is insignificant. Be sure to factor in the heat budget of the ocean (assume a specific heat of 4186 J/kg-K).

[jk the sooner fan]

1 degree over 100 years

dude, if you want to fret like a maniac over it and throw a bunch of math equations at me to make you feel better about it, then go ahead

i'm thinking that when you get out in the real world and have to worry about kids, mortgages, etc.......that 1 degree wont mean a damn thing

[mdklatt]

i'm thinking that if you know anything at all about climatology that 1 degree is a big deal


Fixed.


:rolleyes:

[jk the sooner fan]

again, fret all you want

here's your new mantra

THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING

[jk the sooner fan]

here's a question for you "budding scientists"

how much "global warming" research is privately funded? is it a case of the science community jumping up and down loud enough to get the goverment dollar?

would sure seem to be so...i doubt global warming is going to be the means to my end

[mdklatt]

I'm completely in over my head with this topic, but instead of admitting that I know nothing about the subject I'm going to cotinue to make snide remarks so that I get in the last word.

..

[jk the sooner fan]

i dont care how smart you try to make yourself look or seem

you arent going to get me excited over 1 degree in one century

i doubt many others would disagree

[NYSooner1355]

...i doubt global warming is going to be the means to my end

I'm no liberal, PETA loving, tree hugging freak...but that mentality and quote goes a long way to explain the way we treat the planet as just some expendable product solely for our use and consumption...

I would think a great many of the "conservatives" on this board who just so claim themselves religious or christians would recognize this place we call home is a creation of our Creator, and would as such value it more highly instead of acting as though we don't pollute it or do things to it that are counter to our (and our future generations) survival and well-being here...hey thats just my thoughts...

[jk the sooner fan]

thats not anywhere close to what i said or implied

[1stTimeCaller]

have humans released as much CO2 as Mt. St. Helens did when she erupted?

[NYSooner1355]

was Mt. St Helens natural or man-made?

[1stTimeCaller]

natural. but I think you knew that.

[mdklatt]

here's a question for you "budding scientists"

Actually, what is says on my diploma is "Junior Apprentice Meterologist". :rolleyes:



how much "global warming" research is privately funded?

By entities like the petroleum industry? Some of it, I'm sure. No conflict of interest there....



is it a case of the science community jumping up and down loud enough to get the goverment dollar?

The government hands out the money, but it's fellow scientists who decide who gets funded. Every proposal gets reviewed on it's scientific merit. There is a lot of politics going on, but that's more likely to leave a worthy proposal unfunded rather than giving money to a hack. Keep in mind that the reviewers are often reducing the pool of money available for their own research by approving somebody else's proposal. Also, funding is not contingent upon doctoring your results to support a certain conclusion. Climate reasearch is a naturally a hot topic right now, so there's a lot of money available for it. This will effect the amount of research that gets devoted to the topic, but--in an ideal world--will not effect the results.




would sure seem to be so...i doubt global warming is going to be the means to my end

Shouldn't we try to figure out why the climate is changing? Or if there's anything we can do about it? Or if we should do anything about in the first place?

[jk the sooner fan]

Shouldn't we try to figure out why the climate is changing? Or if there's anything we can do about it? Or if we should do anything about in the first place?

in the history of the earth, have their been similar climate changes?

is this the only time this has happened, or is it cyclical?

oh, and please quit using your degree to assume that i'm stupid

not only does it make you look childish, you have absolutely no idea what i've read on the subject

[mdklatt]

have humans released as much CO2 as Mt. St. Helens did when she erupted?

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp6/question1375.html


As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO2 per year; that production, along with oceanic and terrestrial biomass cycling maintained a carbon dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere of about 2.2X10^15 kg. Current fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a (net) 17.6X10^12 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere and has resulted in a progressively increasing atmospheric reservoir of 2.69X10^15 kg of CO2. Hence, volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97% coming from man-made sources. For more detail, see Morse and Mackenzie, 1990, Geochemistry of Sedimentary Carbonates.

[mdklatt]

in the history of the earth, have their been similar climate changes?

is this the only time this has happened, or is it cyclical?



Yes and yes...so that rules out a man-made component to the current trend?

[1stTimeCaller]

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp6/question1375.html

thanks. I don't know much about global warming and the causes. I haven't read much about it at all and I don't have an opinion on cause/effect/humans/nature. I was just honestly asking a question because I thought I heard/read where MSH released more CO2 than humans had in our history. Thanks for honestly answering the question. I'll let you guys get back to arguing with each other. ;)

[usmc-sooner]

the guy on the discovery channel was introduced as one of the most respected scientist in his field. He said to blame global warming on these things was ignorant and based on junk science. Hey he was just a guy the TDC decided to use. I'm sure he was no jr apprentice who gets harrassed by the cops and the OU swat team.

Oh here's a list of cities that have experienced little or no significant termperature changes.
Death Valley, Ca
McGill, NV actually decreased (oh my God were cooling)
Boulder, Co actually decreased (oh my God were cooling)
Truman, Mo actually decreased
Greenville, SC actually decreased
Ann Arbor, MI actually decreased
Charleston, SC
New York, NY temperature increased
Albany, NY actually decreased
Rome, Itally no change
Paris decreased
Alice Springs Australia no change
Guthrie, OK actually decreasing (oh my God were cooling)
Christ Church, NZ decreasing
Siberia, no change
Stutgart, Germany decreasing
Navacerrada, Spain decreasing
Goteborg, Sweden no change


now temperature has increased in a lot of Japanese cities
and some Mid East cities

damn if I looked at common sense stuff like the actual termperature's not changing or decreasing over most of the globe it sure wouldn't support a global warming scare.

md maybe you should get your money back that you spent for your diploma. It's alright the next 9 weeks will be better.

[1stTimeCaller]

I've not read mdklatt's posts in this thread concerning global warming but in the past on here I've understood his posts to say that he's not sure if global warming is caused by people or not but that there's nothing wrong with scientifically finding out and possibly trying to find a solution if it is determined that humans are causing GW. Seems reasonable to me. Unless there was something lost in the translation.

[mdklatt]

Thanks for honestly answering the question.

That was the first thing that came up in Google. I don't have any reason to doubt it's accuracy, but I can't verify those numbers either.

The claim that the human contribution to CO2 is small is misleading even if it were true.

Say you decide to walk 20 feet to the edge of a tall building, and then I push you last inch over the edge. Am I only 0.5% guilty in your death?

[1stTimeCaller]

That was the first thing that came up in Google. I don't have any reason to doubt it's accuracy, but I can't verify those numbers either.

The claim that the human contribution to CO2 is small is misleading even if it were true.

Say you decide to walk 20 feet to the edge of a tall building, and then I push you last inch over the edge. Am I only 0.5% guilty in your death?

my mom would be soooo angry with you. :mad: ;)

[usmc-sooner]

I've not read mdklatt's posts in this thread concerning global warming but in the past on here I've understood his posts to say that he's not sure if global warming is caused by people or not but that there's nothing wrong with scientifically finding out and possible trying to find a solution if it is determined that humans are causing GW. Seems reasonable to me. Unless there was something lost in the translation.

I got to problems with this either, it's just I'm not going to whine and cry over something that nobody understands. I'm all for less pollution but it just doesn't seem to me that people want to understand what's going on. It could be just cycles the earth goes through like droughts. It was much warmer when dinosaurs roamed the planet. Did they use CO2 to cool it off. I doubt it.

I also think when humans attempt to preserve or manage nature they inherently change it, look at the way the manage national parks. They remove the wolf, re -introduce the wolf, they protect the elk herds, then they thin the herds, they prevent the natural cycles of fires which in turns lets the undergrowth and dead trees get out of control, they remove bears and reintroduce the bears. We never get it right because we are ignorant enough to think we can control and manage things.

[jk the sooner fan]

i never said nor implied that there was anything wrong with finding out the cause for a one degree increase over 100 years

if its happened before and we know its cyclical, then it seems to me its going to happen again, whether we cause it or not

maybe thats not enough empirical evidence.....maybe we should discover what caused it before?

search and discover all you want, just dont expect me to batten down the hatches and get all goofy over it just because you do....and lastly, please spare us the scare tactics until you know for sure whats causing it

[mdklatt]

I've not read mdklatt's posts in this thread concerning global warming but in the past on here I've understood his posts to say that he's not sure if global warming is caused by people or not but that there's nothing wrong with scientifically finding out and possible trying to find a solution if it is determined that humans are causing GW.

Right. There is a very strong correlation between human CO2 emissions and temperature rise, but correlation doesn't not prove causation. However, we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas so it's not unreasonable to assume we've had something to do with it. Using climate simulations of the past 100 years, it can be shown that the temperature rise is due to man-made CO2 contributions. Of course, this is not conclusive either as climate simulations have their own flaws and biases. Here's a big fly in the ointment--there is evidence of global warming on Mars. But this is the key fact that all the heads-in-the-sand folks keep ignoring: natural and human causes are not mutually exclusive.

Here's what we know:

We seem to be in a long-term period of global warming.

It's completely plausible that this warming is due at least in part to human activity.

More heat energy for the ocean/atmosphere to work with will potentially cause more extreme weather--floods, draughts, stronger mid-latitude cyclones and tropical storms, etc.

Last year's tropical activity in the Atlantic coincides with a natural cycle, but increasing sea surface temperatures over time aren't going to help.

It's likely that global warming will not have a significant impact on the lives of everybody here, but science is about answering questions--even if the answers aren't what we want to hear.

[1stTimeCaller]

^^^^^^^^

reminds me of Will Farrell during the debate in Old School. :D

[lefty]

For those interested in studying the global-warming issue need to vist

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=240

This site is about climate science by climate scientists. They are of the position that global warmings is real and largely the result of human activity, they present the data and arguments in a level-headed, even-handed manner. They address the arguments by skeptics and have quite interesting comment sections for the points they make. Check it out.

[KABOOKIE]

I'm still cracking up about one.four

Given the advances in data collection and acquisition over the last 100 years and the validity of samples that date back that far, in my professional opinion one.four would be called.........SCATTER! :D

Md, I understand your point but, come on!!!

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Here's what we know:

We seem to be in a long-term period of global warming.

It's completely plausible that this warming is due at least in part to human activity.

True. But I would be hesitant to say that Human activity is a primary or even a major aspect. The little Ice Age if the 1400s occurred because of a volcano. Increased warming may be an aspect of the earth's tilt, change of orbit, change of sun's output, solar spots, even plant activity, recent studies suggest that trees put out enough methane to affect polution in large cities. So I think there is enough evidence to suggest that we just DON'T know what is happening yet and a cause, other than we are able to describe that something is happening.


More heat energy for the ocean/atmosphere to work with will potentially cause more extreme weather--floods, draughts, stronger mid-latitude cyclones and tropical storms, etc.

Last year's tropical activity in the Atlantic coincides with a natural cycle, but increasing sea surface temperatures over time aren't going to help.

You also forgot to mention that many more people live on/near the coast than they did 40 years ago. Becuase of our booming economy over that time, people have built luxurious homes in areas that previously haven't had populations. That probably is more a factor in the death and destruction than any possible change in the hurricane strength - which I doubt is a "real" change, but a change in the natural cyclical nature of the storms.


It's likely that global warming will not have a significant impact on the lives of everybody here, but science is about answering questions--even if the answers aren't what we want to hear.

But the problem is that the "liberal" scientists are all about the global warming. Real scientist, peer-reviewed and published if they have a contrary view are ostracized because their conclusions don't match the politically correct view of the "mainstream" scientists. Just as I don't preclude that human activity could have a role, those who dismiss that the recorded differences today are not part of a cyclical aspect of the earth are not being true to science. Case in point, the hurricane specialist at CSU - I forget his name - has published and does not believe that global warming has contributed to an increase in strength of hurricanes. He has been deemed a kook and is basically ostracized by those who believe otherwise. There are others, but in order to remain viable in research have kept silent. I know from first hand how vile science can be and having contrary opinions doesn't help your career, research funding and tenure. Many just remain quite to get along. Academia is not necessarily the free exchange of ideas people may think it to be.

[lefty]

THA. Irrespective of your opinion about global warming, how does one who has concluded that the evidence is consistant with human activity being responsible for the observed increases in mean global tempuratures make them liberal?

[GhostOfJAS]

THA is talking about Bill Gray. And there's no conspiracy against Bill Gray and other critics - they've just run out of scientific claims that haven't already been completely and thoroughly debunked. They're to the point they hope by screaming the same untruths over and over again they'll somehow become true.

In the case of Gray, he's turned to ad hominem attacks and "liberal" conspiracy theory claims (i.e., he's completely abandoned scientific discourse because he has none left to offer). It's gotten so bad that he's no longer invited to panel discussions (by moderators who had respected him just a few years ago) because as soon as his claims are refuted by established scienitifc arguments he turns to conspiracy theories and ad hominem attacks. I've eyewitnessed this at recent conferences, and it's clearly a really embarassing thing for his University colleagues. It's turning into a very sad and pathetic end to what would have otherwise been a good career.

It's hardly a "liberal conspiracy" to debunk's someone's claims using science. For people wanting the details, here's a good resource showing how Gray's claims have been discredited: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/

[Sooner24]

Boy if you just read the first and last pages of this thread you would be confused.

[usmc-sooner]

THA is talking about Bill Gray. And there's no conspiracy against Bill Gray and other critics - they've just run out of scientific claims that haven't already been completely and thoroughly debunked. They're to the point they hope by screaming the same untruths over and over again they'll somehow become true.

In the case of Gray, he's turned to ad hominem attacks and "liberal" conspiracy theory claims (i.e., he's completely abandoned scientific discourse because he has none left to offer). It's gotten so bad that he's no longer invited to panel discussions (by moderators who had respected him just a few years ago) because as soon as his claims are refuted by established scienitifc arguments he turns to conspiracy theories and ad hominem attacks. I've eyewitnessed this at recent conferences, and it's clearly a really embarassing thing for his University colleagues. It's turning into a very sad and pathetic end to what would have otherwise been a good career.



It's hardly a "liberal conspiracy" to debunk's someone's claims using science. For people wanting the details, here's a good resource showing how Gray's claims have been discredited: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/

Ok I'm really not trying to argue anymore in this thread. But look at the cities from all over the globe that I listed, I could've listed a lot more but I felt the ones I listed made my point. A lot of these places are actually getting cooler while the others are not warming up at all. What do you make of that. I would think that if all these places have been cooling off or the temperatures were the staying the same, then they aren't warming, right? I don't know if Bill gray was the guy I saw on the discovery channel, but this guy had all his ducks in a row. He didn't deny that global warming could be occurring he just pointed out a lot of other things that were plausible reasons as well. He pointed out how humans have always in one way shape or form altered climates and eco systems, talking about how we've damned rivers, controlled burning, and so on. He was debunking a lot global warming myths saying that there is much more to it than just global warming. Like I said I mean there are a lot of places on the globe that are experiencing coolings I just don't see the logical rational for global warming

[lefty]

usmc. With all due respect, day to day temperature changes at any given location have little or nothing to do with global warming. Those observations are what we call "weather," which is highly variable and have alot to do with a whole lot of unpredictable factors. Global warming has to do with long term trends that have long term effects such as desertification, increased growing seasons in some places, reduction in ice sheets, decreased salt concentrations in the oceans because of increased melt-off, etc. etc. etc.

[usmc-sooner]

usmc. With all due respect, day to day temperature changes at any given location have little or nothing to do with global warming. Those observations are what we call "weather," which is highly variable and have alot to do with a whole lot of unpredictable factors. Global warming has to do with long term trends that have long term effects such as desertification, increased growing seasons in some places, reduction in ice sheets, decreased salt concentrations in the oceans because of increased melt-off, etc. etc. etc.

well the cities I listed had shown cooling trends or no signicant increases over long terms. and like I said we haven't even studied half of the glaciers that are out there, some of the ones we have studied are growing. Look I'm not just arguing to be arguing, and respect your right to have a differing opinion than me. It just seems to me that what they are telling us is happening really isn't happening.

[lefty]

I have no dog in the global-warming fight. I have been highly skeptical of these claims but have become less so in the past few years. I don't have an opinion, per se, but rather would like to see how the science pans out. Accusing those with a particular position on the scientific merits (you did not do this) of global warming has being politically motivated to have such a position is non-productive.

[usmc-sooner]

so if the OU swat team kicks down my door on really hot day and they don't annouce global warming, I can then legally pull out my gun and shoot them


:D :D :D

I think we've covered it all in this thread.

[lefty]

If you don't, you will be the one at fault.:rolleyes:

[mdklatt]

well the cities I listed had shown cooling trends or no signicant increases over long terms.

Global warming does not mean everywhere is experiencing the exact same temperature increase. Some places (like the Arctic) are getting warmer a lot faster, while some places may not be getting warmer at all. But if you look at the average temperature for the entire planet, it's warmer. That's global warming. Saying that there is global warming has nothing to do with why it's happening, whether or not it's happened before, or what the conseqences might be. It's simply an observation, not a political statement. Get it?

If somebody tells you the sun is about to set are you going to go off on them and tell them that the sun has set before and it will set again regardless of what humans do, and in fact, when the sun is setting one place it's rising another?

[GhostOfJAS]

Cherry picking the ~5% of weather sites that have cooled over recent decades, and ignoring the ~95% that have warmed, is hardly convincing.

[KABOOKIE]

95% of one.four is one.threeeeeeee. :D

[usmc-sooner]

bring on the heat baby, at least I contributed to something during my short stay here.