Obama '08?

@Debra Law,

The Supremes this year in United States v. Herring significantly expanded the police "good Faith" doctrine, your cases are out of date.

I'll go with you so far as my use of the word subjective is in error, police must have objective arguments for why their actions are demonstratively in good faith. My argument is that cops must evaluate, and courts can not hamstring police by demanding that their evaluations are always correct. Demanding zero defect in evaluation will cripple policing, and courts will not go there.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

The Supremes this year in United States v. Herring significantly expanded the police "good Faith" doctrine, your cases are out of date.

I'll go with you so far as my use of the word subjective is in error, police must have objective arguments for why their actions are demonstratively in good faith. My argument is that cops must evaluate, and courts can not hamstring police by demanding that their evaluations are always correct. Demanding zero defect in evaluation will cripple policing, and courts will not go there.

United States v. Herring did not expand "the police 'good faith' doctrine," because no such doctrine exists.

The Herring case applied the "good faith exception" (enunciated in U.S. v. Leon) to the EXCLUSIONARY RULE. If the police violate the Fourth Amendment, then any evidence obtained as the fruit of that violation must be suppressed and excluded as evidence. The exclusionary rule is designed to deter unlawful POLICE conduct.

However, in cases that involve WARRANTS, if the police have no knowledge that probable cause was lacking when a COURT issues a warrant, (or no knowledge that an outstanding warrant had been quashed as in the Herring case), and the police acted in good faith reliance upon the WARRANT, then the evidence need not be suppressed because there is no unlawful police conduct to deter.

As you know, we were not talking about an arrest made pursuant to a warrant. We were discussing a WARRANTLESS arrest. Accordingly, the good faith or bad faith of the arresting officer is not relevant. If the warrantless arrest is not justified by probable cause pursuant to the established objective standard (set forth in the cases provided), then the arrest is UNLAWFUL. Accordingly, any evidence that may be seized as the result of a search incident to the unlawful arrest must be suppressed.

Do you understand?

1 Reply

“In cases where the securing of a warrant is reasonably practicable, it must be used and when properly supported by affidavit and issued after judicial approval protects the seizing officer against a suit for damages.” Carrol v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 156 (1925). “In cases where seizure is impossible except without warrant, the seizing officer acts unlawfully and at his peril unless he can show the court probable cause.” Id.

The Carrol case, though decided in 1925, is still good law. An officer acts unlawfully and at his peril (subject to a suit for damages) when he makes a warrantless arrest unless he can show the court probable cause.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra, I'm not an attorney, but I came to the same conclusion you did by reading the Wiki entry on this case. The police in this case did nothing wrong.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

Good afternoon. Every couple of weeks since the 1st of March, I have been posting polling results on President Obama's approval ratings as gathered by the polltaker Rasmussen. Here is the latest update:
The 1st set of numbers is the % of respondents who STRONGLY APPROVE of Mr Obama's performance vs the % who STRONGLY DISAPPROVE. The 2nd number is the index obtained by subtracting the DISAPPROVE from the APPROVE. The 3rd set is the % of folks who APPROVE vs DISAPPROVE, dropping the word "STRONGLY."

3/1/09: (38%-30%) = +8 (58%-40%)
3/15/09: (37%-31%) = +6 (56%-43%)
4/1/09: (37%-29%) = +5 (56%-44%)
4/14/09: (35%-32%) = +3 (55%-44%)
5/2/09: (33%-32%) = +1 (54%-45%)
5/16/09: (34%-30%) = +4 (56%-43%)
5/31/09: (36%-26%) = +10 (58%-41%)
6/16/09: (36%-32%) = +4 (56%-43% )

I failed to keep this updated every couple of weeks, partially because yall were doing it periodically but also because I found many of the posts here to be pretty repetitive. I kind of lost interest.
Coming soon! 6/30, 7/15 and 7/31.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

realjohnboy wrote:

Good afternoon. Every couple of weeks since the 1st of March, I have been posting polling results on President Obama's approval ratings as gathered by the polltaker Rasmussen. Here is the latest update:
The 1st set of numbers is the % of respondents who STRONGLY APPROVE of Mr Obama's performance vs the % who STRONGLY DISAPPROVE. The 2nd number is the index obtained by subtracting the DISAPPROVE from the APPROVE. The 3rd set is the % of folks who APPROVE vs DISAPPROVE, dropping the word "STRONGLY."

3/1/09: (38%-30%) = +8 (58%-40%)
3/15/09: (37%-31%) = +6 (56%-43%)
4/1/09: (37%-29%) = +5 (56%-44%)
4/14/09: (35%-32%) = +3 (55%-44%)
5/2/09: (33%-32%) = +1 (54%-45%)
5/16/09: (34%-30%) = +4 (56%-43%)
5/31/09: (36%-26%) = +10 (58%-41%)
6/16/09: (36%-32%) = +4 (56%-43% )
6/30/09: (31%-33%) = -2 (54%-46%)
7/15/09: (29%-36%) = -7 (52%-47%)
7/31/09: (28%-39%) = -11 (48%-51%)

2 Replies

I am sure that some of yall can come of with predictably pithy explanations for the decline in President Obama's performance in the polls. I come up with 3.
1) The economy still sucks for most people. Job losses (a lagging indicator) continue to rise while banks are starting to report improving profits (and bonuses);
2) Mr Obama staked a lot on getting health care reform (or whatever you want to call it) through Congress before the August recess. He pushed, in my opinion, too hard. Nobody understands what the ramifications are. People got scared of this thing moving too fast. As it turns out, Congress will leave town with no legislation in place. When they get back, the issue may be dead for this session. A punt until after the mid-term elections.
3) Mr Obama's statement about the Gates-Crowley incident was just plain stupid and hurt him. He should have stopped after saying "I don't know the details..."
That is my take on the numbers in the polls.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

rjb, There are always two sides to every coin, and to be fair, let me attempt to point them out.

1) On the economy, most people are expecting the stimulus plan to have taken effect, and to reverse the job losses that have run over 20,000 a day for several months. There is nothing on planet earth that's going to reverse that trend on a dime - with or without a stimulus plan. Also, the administration have said that the stimulus plan will not take effect until this half of the year and into next year. I understand their impatience, but a little reality wouldn't hurt. After all, millions who have lost their jobs are being provided with extended unemployment benefits. I have also heard that getting the money distributed to state and local governments have been slow, and many still have not received those funds.
2) On the health care plan, Obama made the big mistake of not communicating the right kind of information about a) cost of the plan, b) savings to be realized by a universal health plan, c) the government is not going to take over health care in the US, d) everybody will be allowed to choose their own doctor, e) how they plan to pay for universal health care, and f) nobody will be penalized.
3) On the Crowley-Gates incident, I couldn't agree with you more. He made a stupid mistake by making a statement as president on an issue that the local police and people would have settled without his input. Even my opinion about the whole incident was biased for Professor Gates at the very beginning, because a) I know racial profiling by police still occurs, and b) I jump in head first when I think a minority has been mistreated by the police. After all I've seen and heard about this incident, I'm no longer supporting only Professor Gates; they both did wrong.

0 Replies

Something to watch, there are reports Obama has removed or will remove Patrick Fitzgerald from his job of investigating Obama's pals in Chicago. Is this going to turn out to be true? Keep a sharp eye on this. If so, impeachment proceedings should start right away.

2 Replies

@okie,

Patrick Fitzgerald hasn't even finished with all the investigations he started several years ago. How much time does he need?

0 Replies

@okie,

"Patrick J. Fitzgerald is the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. Rumors have been circulating that Tony Rezko was getting ready to spill his guts to the US Attorney in connection with the Blagojevich Trial. There is speculation some of the Rezko testimony would implicate Obama in his criminal activities."

http://www.chicagogop.com/blog/1300-Sean-Hannity-Patrick-Fitzgerald-removed-from-office.html

2 Replies

@okie,

Rumor. Fitzgerald will probably take another ten years before we learn anything more from him about any of the investigations he's supposedly working on.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

"Patrick J. Fitzgerald is the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. Rumors have been circulating that Tony Rezko was getting ready to spill his guts to the US Attorney in connection with the Blagojevich Trial. There is speculation some of the Rezko testimony would implicate Obama in his criminal activities."

http://www.chicagogop.com/blog/1300-Sean-Hannity-Patrick-Fitzgerald-removed-from-office.html

Oh, well if it comes from the Chicago GOP and Sean Hannity, why, it must be true!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

Hannity Plays The Race Card Against Obama And Echoes Viral
Reported by Ellen - January 10, 2008 - 56 comments

Here we go again. White supremacist sympathizer and proven bigot Sean Hannity once again pulled out the race card on Barack Obama on last night's (1/9/08) Hannity & Colmes. No one familiar with Hannity's history of hostility toward African Americans should be surprised that he would do this, especially once Obama won the Iowa caucuses. It was also expected that Hannity wouldn’t even have the intellectual honesty (to borrow one of his own favorite phrases) to openly declare his prejudice. Instead, Hannity slyly “just asked” whether or not the precepts of Obama’s church didn’t indicate a racist nature on his part. With video.

The issue arose during an interview with former Senator Bill Bradley, an Obama supporter. I’ve always liked Bradley but he was obviously unprepared to deal with the question. There’s no excuse for that. It’s one of the top issues on [url]Snopes.com[/url].

0 Replies

Issa says to backoff on Chicago street thugery politics.

"WASHINGTON. D.C. " Following reports that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been orchestrating an effort to intimidate members of Congress and Governors who raise legitimate concerns regarding the effectiveness of the stimulus, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Member Darrell Issa (R-CA) sent a letter to Emanuel saying “While this type of scare tactic may work In Chicago, it will not work to intimidate me or other Members of the United States Congress.”

“I and others have dared to bring these facts to the attention of President Obama, the Congress and the American people,” Issa wrote. “You’ve unfortunately reacted by once again resorting to the playbook of the Chicago political machine.”

...."

http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=625

2 Replies

@okie,

Since you do not read or listen to the right media to bring you up to speed on the stimulus plan, you can continue on with your ignorant rants.

CLUE: Most of the stimulus money has not been distributed, and those who received funds have not spent it.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

rjb, In addition to the Obama approve/disapprove polls, the MACs-conservatives also like to show graphs showing Obama's approval/disapproval ratings, but what they don't see is the damage they have incurred by their own party during that same period that shows their numbers decreasing at greater numbers than Obama's popularity.

They all belong on the laffer curve.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/imposter222/partyid1988to2009.gif

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Rumor...

it's all the goppers have anymore. hannity and that bunch gossip like a bunch of old women.

sincere apologies to all of you beautiful ladies of long life experience. Wink

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Issa ...

darryl issa... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!! the gop's very own charlie brown.

"hey darryl, karl here... yes, yes, i know. it's always a pleasure to hear from me. yes, yes darryl. i know you would if iasked you to. um hmmm. yup, i do like mary jane shoes... okay.. look darryl, the reason for my call is we are going to absolutely F*@k gray davis out your way. now what i'd like for you to do, is start making noise about how it's not enron's fault that the lights keeping browning and blacking. no, no. no, darryl it is gray davis' fault for paying too much for electricity. what, darryl? no, of course nobody is going to mention that he was paying too much through a deal brokered by enron.. in any case, you just get the ball rolling. do good. and remember, the governor seat will be open and we would, of course, prefer a republican governor in california. uh, huhh. well i don't see why you wouldn't be qualified, darryl. mmmm-hmmm.. yes, darryl.. um hold on a sec, darryl...... darryl, i'll have to let you go, arnold schwarzzeneggar is on the other line. no, i have noooooo idea what he could want.. yes, darryl, thank you. yes, i know you would. remember, get that ball rolling.. good boy!! g'bye, now...."

that darry issa ?

0 Replies

Striking Similarity of tactics by lefties here, folks!

"Chavez Calls Attack on Opposition TV Station 'Anarchist'"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,537000,00.html?test=latestnews

"DNC: GOP 'inciting angry mobs' of 'rabid right wing extremists'"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2308299/posts?page=134

2 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know