crazy, crazy, feds

Discussion in 'News, Headlines and Information' started by diesel, May 20, 2014.

  1. diesel
    Offline

    diesel

    I knew this would happen sooner rather than later but not in Wisconsin. I figured NYC or somewhere in Calli.:cuss: :banghead: :flag:

    Shock FedGov Court Ruling: Police Can Kick In Your Door and Seize Guns Without Warrant or Charges

    Mac Slavo
    SHTFPlan.com
    May 20, 2014

    The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals may have just dealt a serious blow to the U.S. Constitution.

    In a unanimous decision earlier this month the Court determined that law enforcement officers are not required to present a warrant or charges before forcibly entering a person’s home, searching it, and confiscating their firearms if they believe it is in the individual’s best interests.

    The landmark suit was brought before the court by Krysta Sutterfield of Milwaukee, who had recently visited a psychiatrist for outpatient therapy resulting from some bad news that she had received. According to court records Sutterfield had expressed a suicidal thought during the visit, perhaps tongue-in-cheek, when she said “I guess I’ll go home and blow my brains out.†This prompted her doctor to contact police.

    For several hours the police searched for Sutterfield, speaking with neighbors and awaiting her return home. They received an update from her psychiatrist who said that Sutterfield had contacted her and advised that she was not in need of assistance and to “call off†the search, which the doctor did not agree to. Police eventually left and Sutterfield returned home, only to be visited later that evening by the lead detective on the case:
    Krysta Sutterfield vs. city of Milwaukee, et al.

    Sutterfield answered Hewitt’s knock at the front door but would not engage with her, except to state repeatedly that she had “called off†the police and to keep shutting the door on Hewitt. Sutterfield would not admit Hewitt to the residence, and during the exchange kept the outer storm door closed and locked. Unable to gain admittance to the house, Hewitt concluded that the police would have to enter it forcibly.

    …

    Sutterfield called 911 in an effort to have the officers leave; as a result of that call, the ensuing events were recorded by the emergency call center. Sutterfield can be heard on the recording telling the officers that she was fine and that she did not want anyone to enter her residence.

    …

    After informing Sutterfield of his intention to open the storm door forcibly if she did not unlock it herself, Berken yanked the door open and entered the house with the other officers to take custody of Sutterfield pursuant to the statement of detention. A brief struggle ensued.

    Sutterfield can be heard on the 911 recording demanding both that the officers let go of her and that they leave her home. (Sutterfield would later say that the officers tackled her.) Sutterfield was handcuffed and placed in the officers’ custody.

    …

    At that point the officers conducted a protective sweep of the home. In the kitchen, officer James Floriani observed a compact disc carrying case in plain view. He picked up the soft-sided case, which was locked, and surmised from the feel and weight of its contents that there might be a firearm inside. He then forced the case open and discovered a semi-automatic handgun inside; a yellow smiley-face sticker was affixed to the barrel of the gun, covering the muzzle. Also inside the case were concealed-carry firearm licenses from multiple jurisdictions other than Wisconsin. Elsewhere in the kitchen the officers discovered a BB gun made to realistically resemble a Glock 29 handgun.

    The contents of the case were seized along with the BB gun and placed into police inventory for safekeeping.

    Berken would later state that he authorized the seizure of the handgun in order to keep them out of the hands of a juvenile, should a juvenile enter the house unaccompanied by an adult while Sutterfield remained in the hospital.

    Sutterfield subsequently filed a lawsuit against the City of Milwaukee with the district court, a case that was initially dismissed. She then filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th District claiming that her Second and Fourth Amendment rights were violated.

    In a 75-page opinion the court, while pointing out that the intrusion against Sutterfield was profound, sided with the city of Milwaukee:


    “The intrusions upon Sutterfield’s privacy were profound,†Judge Ilana Rovner wrote for three-judge panel.

    “At the core of the privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment is the right to be let alone in one’s home.â€

    But the court also found, that on the other hand, “There is no suggestion that (police) acted for any reason other than to protect Sutterfield from harm.â€

    “Even if the officers did exceed constitutional boundaries,†the court document states, “they are protected by qualified immunity.â€

    As noted by Police State USA, the court may have just created a legal loophole for law enforcement officials around the country, giving them immunity from Constitutional violations if they merely suggest that exigent circumstances exist and that they are acting in the best interests of the health and safety of an alleged suspect, regardless of Constitutional requirements:


    In short, Sutterfield’s privacy (which was admittedly encroached upon) was left unprotected by the Bill of Rights because of the “exigent circumstances†in which police executed an emergency detention — with no warrant, no criminal charges, and no input from the judiciary. Similarly, the gun confiscation was also deemed as acceptable due to the so-called “emergency†which police claimed had been taking place for 9 consecutive hours.

    The federal ruling affirms a legal loophole which allows targeted home invasions, warrantless searches, and gun confiscations that rest entirely in the hands of the Executive Branch. The emergency aid doctrine enables police to act without a search warrant, even if there is time to get one. When the government wants to check on someone, his or her rights are essentially suspended until the person’s sanity has been forcibly validated.

    The implications of the courts legal decision are alarmingly broad. Though this particular case involved exigent circumstances in which an individual suggested she wanted to commit suicide, albeit tongue-in-cheek, the court’s opinion suggests that such tactics can be applied for any “emergency†wherein police subjectively determine that an individual may be a danger to themselves or others.

    Under new statutes passed by the federal government these emergencies and dangers could potentially include any number of scenarios. Senator Rand Paul recently highlighted that there are laws on the books that categorize a number of different activities as having the potential for terrorism, including things like purchasing bulk ammunition. Last month, when a group of concerned citizens assembled at Bundy Ranch in Nevada to protest government overreach, Senator Harry Reid dubbed them“domestic terrorists.†Even paying with cash or complaining about chemicals in water can land an American on the terror watch list. Non-conformists who do not subscribe to the status quo can now be considered mentally insane according to psychiatrists’Diagnostic and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders.

    Law enforcement has an almost unlimited amount of circumstances they can cite to justify threats to one’s self or others, and thus, to ignore Constitutional requirements when serving at the behest of the local, state or federal government.

    Has the Federal Court’s latest decision made it possible for these vaguely defined suspicious activities to be molded into exigent circumstances that give police the right to enter homes without due process, confiscate legally owned personal belongings, and detain residents without charge?


    This article was posted: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 at 5:25 am
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2014
  2. daniellawecki
    Offline

    daniellawecki

    994
    32
    toledo
    I think we are heading to Marshall Law anything to peck away at legal gun rights. The Vets of this great country will lose gun ownership. People saying the wrong statement like the lady in above. If you joke and someone takes it wrong they will come knocking. The people in the country have been taught to self police others. So now you have to be aware of everything you say or type.
     
  3. I'd press charges and sue the shit out of them. The constitution does not allow for unwarranted entry to ones private dwelling, let alone search and seizure without warrant. These judges are fucking wrong, end of story.
     
  4. If, I repeat IF someone was suicidal all they would have to do is let their doctor know and then go home to be taken down by the police that is there to p r o t e c t them. Suicide by cop, if she had resisted with a weapon they would have killed her. Some one in the wrong state of mind could take advantage of just such a scenario.
    ~
    Wisconsin has been screwy for a few years now, this isn't really that big of a surprise. The courts up there are just plain stupid. Now they have created a new method for citizen abuse by law enforcement.
     
  5. I was going to post about this one too. It does scare the hell out me for various reasons I will not go into here. Needless to say this does give the government an IN when it comes to disarming the general populace now. They can give any reason for the seizure of your weapons without regard to laws that WE think should protect us against it. All they need to say is they have proof you were a danger to yourself or others around you be cause of mental instability.

    Daniel is right, we are headed for marshal law here. I firmly believe that is what the POTUS wants so he can invoke supreme rule over the U.S. citizenry here and allow the U.N. to come in to clean it all up by disarming us and forcing us into socialism. Bare in mind that he has already started that process and it just looking to finish it any way he can right now. Sorry for the soap box moment as I know I am preaching to the choir here.
     
  6. Preaching to the choir... Just means you're hittin' the nail on the head bud.:thumbs:
     
  7. diesel
    Offline

    diesel

    Thrash is right, Wolf, my sentiments exactly. I don't mind preaching as I've nothing else to do being unemployed for so long now.......lol. I really don't mean to preach, but I want all of you good people to know whats really going on out there cuz with you all working and taking care of little ones you may not have time time read these and this site and many other things.
    I want you guys to be aware cuz I know you all are the types that will be standing there next to ME when the shit goes down.
    I've been chatn' with you now for about 1 1/2 years now, Andy. I've no doubt where you stand. Oldman, AD, DL, + Dog, absolutely "all-in, in my opinion, never a doubt. Most of you newer guys and Prep and Dawn as well:flag:.
    Again, I will continue to post these articles I find unconstitutional and politically bereft,......... until you folks ask me not to.:flag:
     
  8. Thank you Diesel. You have my full permission to continue to post as you see fit. That is what I created this community for, sharing of information. You can bet your Red White and Blue American ass I will be there if and when the shit hits the fan and I will fight for my countrymen and our freedoms. I do not and never will trust this government we have currently. They have a VERY long way to go to gain my trust again.

    Some may disagree with me but I firmly believe we need another Ronald Reagan, he was a true American president that loved his country and the people of this great nation. I hope and pray that there is another one like him somewhere among the politicians we currently have or will have.

    Anyway thank you Diesel. I will end yet another rant. :D
     
  9. diesel
    Offline

    diesel

    Amen, my little brother.:flag:
     
  10. I disagree with your sentiments on Ronald Regan Wolf. Before and during his presidency he may have acted (mostly) in the interests of freedom for we the people and gun rights. After his presidency he became a staunch supporter of gun control, not only voicing his strong support of the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban, but convincing many "Republicans" in office to vote for both bills. Read 'em and weep sir. :(
    http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Gun-Rights-Ronald-Reagan.htm
     
  11. I did not say he was a flawless president Thrash. I think we need another man like him in the white house who actually cares about the country and her people. Certainly there were things I did not agree with, that's a given, however he was never afraid to speak his mind or take action against a foreign enemy when they threatened the U.S. He most certainly did love and appreciate the people unlike the current POS.
     

Share This Page