Moderators

    Group Owner

    K Jabuki


    Disclaimer: The information provided in this group is not legal advice and should not be construed as such. The group will provide general information on legal issues commonly encountered but the group cannot provide legal advice and is not a substitute for an attorney or law firm. If you have legal issues or questions whether related to subject matter in this group or not, it is recommended that you speak to an attorney licensed to practice law in your state or country as I am not a lawyer.

About This Group

    “There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice" - Charles de Montesquieu

    Tired of feeling like a deer in headlights when confronted with a police or legal matter. Solutions oriented group based on the tenets of Justice, Equality and the Constitution addressing plaguing problems. Knowledge is power.

    "The Constitution is a timeless document, written with such thought as to address every issue that may come before the Supreme Court for generations and decades to come" - Judge Sotomayor

    "We must scrupulously guard the civil rights and civil liberties of all our citizens, whatever their background. We must remember that any oppression, any injustice, any hatred, is a wedge designed to attack our civilization" - Franklin D. Roosevelt

    "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority to set brush fires in peoples minds" - Samuel Adams

    "Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute" - Proverbs 31:8

Recent Forum Posts

    "Stand Your Ground" Laws May Be Unconstitutional: Must Be Repealed

    Tuesday, March 27, 2012, 10:15 PM [General]
    Posted By: K Jabuki

    Stand Your Ground laws are a threat to all unarmed citizens because they deny unarmed citizens the equal protection of personal safety as armed individuals have no duty to disclose.

    The Trayvon Martin case also raises specific issues of great concern:

    * Circumvention of law enforcement and the judicial process,

    * Role of Neighborhood Watch & its procedures,

    * Selective investigation & prosecution

    * Profiling and the lack of training by the average citizen to profile,

    * And most alarming to my mind is the Florida Stand Your Ground Law the Martin-Zimmerman case has brought to national attention.

    Stand Your Ground laws are provocative to say the least and tragic and catastrophic with the potential to alter daily life as we know it and incite widespread civil unrest in the worst case scenario.

    Stand Your Ground laws live in the land of subjectivity and should concern Americans of every race.

    Common grudges, workplace disputes, bar arguments, selling door to door, delivering mail or packages, parties could all end in death due to this law.

    Hypothetically, if a man catches his wife in bed with another man, can she kill him if he's boiling mad in the heat of the moment? There are so many situations in which Stand Your Ground laws could be abused its frightening.

    The Florida Stand Your Ground law states in part:

    "a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

    (1)  He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony..."

    In my opinion, Florida's Stand Your Ground law has the improper effect of elevating private citizens to the role of police officer. This law deputizes every maniac with a gun.

    Gun laws should always inspire gun holders to be measured in their actions, not reckless.

    Stand Your Ground laws, combined with conceal & carry laws, embolden a warrior mentality to kill if one subjectively feels threatened or believes someone is committing or about to committ a felony. Problem is, the person pulling the trigger then using this law as a defense, more often than not, has no law enforcement training whatsoever especially concerning use of deadly force decision making like law enforcement does.

    Consequently, Stand Your Ground laws may be further unconstitutional because the private citizen shooter acting as law enforcement, judge, jury and executioner circumvents the criminal justice system depriving victims Due Process of Law under the Fourth Amendment.

    According to Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement, "justifiable homicides" have tripled in the state since this law was enacted in 2005.

    Disturbingly,more than 25 states have adpoted copy cat laws similar to Florida's Stand Your Ground law and five other states are considering such legislation.

    For the record, most murders by private citizens are not self defense.

    As such, Stand Your Ground laws have become and will continue to be an excuse to kill rather than a legitimate claim of self-defense. Action must be taken to correct inequalities this law creates.

     


    3.7 (1 Ratings)

    Supreme Court rules police need warrant for GPS tracking [United States v. Antoine Jones, No. 10-1259]

    Wednesday, January 25, 2012, 5:12 AM [General]
    Posted By: K Jabuki

    The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that police cannot put a GPS device on a suspect's car to track his movements without a warrant, a test case that upholds basic privacy rights in the face of new surveillance technology.

    The high court ruling was a defeat for the Obama administration, which had argued that a warrant was not required to use global positioning system devices to monitor a vehicle on public streets.

    The justices unanimously upheld a precedent-setting ruling by a U.S. appeals court that the police must first obtain a warrant to use a GPS device for an extended period of time to covertly follow a suspect.

    The high court ruled that placement of a device on a vehicle and using it to monitor the vehicle's movements was covered by U.S. constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures of evidence.

    There are no precise statistics on how often police in the United States use GPS tracking in criminal investigations. But the Obama administration told the court last year it was used sparingly by federal law enforcement officials.

    The American Civil Liberties Union rights group hailed the ruling as an important victory for privacy. "While this case turned on the fact that the government physically placed a GPS device on the defendant's car, the implications are much broader," Steven Shapiro of the ACLU said.

    "A majority of the court acknowledged that advancing technology, like cell phone tracking, gives the government unprecedented ability to collect, store, and analyze an enormous amount of information about our private lives," he said.

    SUSPECTED DRUG TRAFFICKER

    The case began in 2005 when police officers went to a public parking lot in Maryland and secretly installed a GPS device on a Jeep Grand Cherokee used by a Washington, D.C. nightclub owner, Antoine Jones.

    Jones was suspected of drug trafficking and the police tracked his movements for a month. The resulting evidence played a key role in his conviction for conspiring to distribute cocaine.

    The appeals court had thrown out Jones's conviction and his

    life-in-prison sentence, and ruled prolonged electronic monitoring of the vehicle amounted to a search.

    All nine justices agreed in upholding the appeals court decision, but at least four justices would have gone even further in finding fault not only with the attachment of the device, but also with the lengthy monitoring.

    In summarizing the court's majority opinion from the bench, Justice Antonin Scalia said attachment of the device by the police was a trespass and an improper intrusion of the kind that would have been considered a search when the Constitution was adopted some 220 years ago.

    The administration argued that even if it were a search, it was lawful and reasonable under the Constitution. Scalia said his opinion did not decide that issue and some more difficult problems that may emerge in a future case, such as a six-month monitoring of a suspected terrorist.

    Joining Scalia's opinion were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor.

    Sotomayor wrote separately to say the case raised difficult questions about individual privacy expectations in a digital age, but said the case could be decided on narrower grounds over the physical intrusion in attaching the device.

    LONG-TERM MONITORING

    Justice Samuel Alito wrote a separate opinion that Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined. He wrote that he would have decided the case by holding that Jones's reasonable privacy expectations were violated by long-term monitoring of his vehicle's movements.

    Alito said in recent years many new devices have emerged that track a person's movements, including video surveillance in some cities, automatic toll collection systems on roads, devices on cars that disclose their location, cell phones and other wireless devices.

    "The availability and use of these and other new devices will continue to shape the average person's expectations about the privacy of his or her daily movements," he wrote.

    One law professor said those four justices were clearly concerned about the potential impact of new technologies and believed extended monitoring likely required a warrant so law enforcement should "be on the safe side and get a warrant."

    "This is an indication that there are justices who are recognizing that privacy norms are shifting but the fact that people's lives take place increasingly online does not mean that society has decided that there's no such thing as privacy anymore," said Joel Reidenberg, a law professor at Fordham University in New York.

    The Supreme Court case is United States v. Antoine Jones, No. 10-1259.

    Source: Reuters - click here

    Reporting By James Vicini; Editing by Will Dunham

    4.1 (2 Ratings)

Media

    Loading...

Calendar