StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I have a reason to despise and utterly loathe the Patriot Acts. As none of you know, except maybe Zaia and Kelly, I am going to a Youth transitional place, which is for kids 14-24 to go that are homeless or at-risk. It basically provides many things, including a "second home," of sorts, to a lot of people. In any case, yesterday, there was a court proceeding (sp?) involving the burning down of the last place it was at.. And one of the staff members (who is getting social security for mental instability) said that he was going to kill the President - and he also says he doesn't even remember saying it. Now, I have heard of blackouts in manic stages, mind you. In any case, Secret Services came to the Youth in Transition (the youth center) without search warrants or anything. According to the Constitution, it is our right to deny them (as a governmental force) entry into our place without permission. The director did not give them premission to enter the center. ARUGH!!!!

[/rant]

Where they asked to leave and refused? Is it necessary to enter the center to talk to anyone in charge? If the answers are no and yes you've got nothing to rant about.

Though legally they may already have had probable cause to enter anyway to talk to this person.

Sea Skimmer wrote:Where they asked to leave and refused? Is it necessary to enter the center to talk to anyone in charge? If the answers are no and yes you've got nothing to rant about.

Actually, yes and no, respectively.

Though legally they may already have had probable cause to enter anyway to talk to this person.

They may have had probable cause, but they still need a warrant, if I am up-to-date on my laws.

verilon wrote:

Though legally they may already have had probable cause to enter anyway to talk to this person.

They may have had probable cause, but they still need a warrant, if I am up-to-date on my laws.

Only if they wish to use evidence recovered from the scene in court.

Sea Skimmer wrote:Only if they wish to use evidence recovered from the scene in court.

So if they *don't* want to use evidence from the court, they are still allowed in without permission *and* without a warrant?

verilon wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:Only if they wish to use evidence recovered from the scene in court.

So if they *don't* want to use evidence from the court, they are still allowed in without permission *and* without a warrant?

I believe that he means that given probable cause, police can enter. However, they cannot use what they find as evidence in court. For that they would need a warrant. It prevents abuse of power in that they cannot just go in and pretend there was probable cause. The point is to get usuable evidence, not throw around your weight.

By the way, even with a warrant, they can still enter even if you don't want them to.

By the way, even with a warrant, they can still enter even if you don't want them to.

How is that so?

verilon wrote:

By the way, even with a warrant, they can still enter even if you don't want them to.

How is that so?

Well, if after declaring who he is, and that he has a warrant, he is allowed to break in, if you refuse to let him do it.

neoolong wrote:

verilon wrote:

By the way, even with a warrant, they can still enter even if you don't want them to.

How is that so?

Well, if after declaring who he is, and that he has a warrant, he is allowed to break in, if you refuse to let him do it.

I just said he didn't have a warrant....

verilon wrote:I just said he didn't have a warrant....

But the part you quoted was the part where I talked about having a warrant. Whatever.

The other stuff explains when he doesn't need one. Though, a warrant also isn't needed in certain other cases, like during an arrest, if he sees an illegal activity, etc.

neoolong wrote:

verilon wrote:I just said he didn't have a warrant....

But the part you quoted was the part where I talked about having a warrant. Whatever.

The other stuff explains when he doesn't need one. Though, a warrant also isn't needed in certain other cases, like during an arrest, if he sees an illegal activity, etc.

I was confused... gimme a break.

But thank you for clarifying that.

verilon wrote:I have a reason to despise and utterly loathe the Patriot Acts. As none of you know, except maybe Zaia and Kelly, I am going to a Youth transitional place, which is for kids 14-24 to go that are homeless or at-risk. It basically provides many things, including a "second home," of sorts, to a lot of people. In any case, yesterday, there was a court proceeding (sp?) involving the burning down of the last place it was at.. And one of the staff members (who is getting social security for mental instability) said that he was going to kill the President - and he also says he doesn't even remember saying it. Now, I have heard of blackouts in manic stages, mind you. In any case, Secret Services came to the Youth in Transition (the youth center) without search warrants or anything. According to the Constitution, it is our right to deny them (as a governmental force) entry into our place without permission. The director did not give them premission to enter the center. ARUGH!!!!

[/rant]

That has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. The Secret Service was given the authority to do that a long time ago (Heck, it was even before they created that secret appeals court) so as to protect the President from potential threats.

What happened, basically, is that someone reported that guy to local law enforcement, or a local FBI branch perhaps. It got bumped up to the Secret Service, and they did a little digging and found out he was mentally unstable - Uh oh! They take mentally unstable people making threats about the President very fucking seriously. So they came and paid him a little visit that he will never forget, and if he has two braincells to rub together, he'll never say anything like that again.

Other posts have already covered the general aspects. But, essentially - It is illegal to threaten violence against the President of the United States of America, and the Secret Service takes those threats very seriously. You do it in the States and you get a talking to. If you're a foreigner who does it and word gets around, you might get met at customs by some very imposing gentlemen.

Ver, incidently, I hope what I just said doesn't bother you - I'm just trying to drive home how serious that is. That's a federal offense of particular severity, and though most people who make those kinds of threats just get a visit... Well, whenever the President visits a city, people like that are under observation. They've marked themselves by their own stupidity.

The Secret Service also has at least some capability of keeping track of threats on internet message boards. Mike, actually, I'd advise you to make it a policy of perm-banning anyone who threatens the POTUS here - Or any other Head of State for good measure. It's entirely possible that you could into legal trouble for letting threats to the POTUS continue without taking action on your board, should you ever visit in the USA after that were to come to the notice of the USSS.

I can't think of anything really specific that's come up like that, but I'm bringing this up in case someone gets stupid here.

I talked with some people and I only have one thing to say - I hate the Secret Service.

DoZ - doesn't bother me a bit. But when you're in New Mexico.. chances of getting anywhere near the POTUS when you're a guy like him are slim to none.

verilon wrote:I talked with some people and I only have one thing to say - I hate the Secret Service.

Same here. If I ever became president, my first order would be to
disband the secret service, open up Pennslyvania avenue again, and
start riding in open-topped limos again.

I mean for christ's sake, it's not like we're electing a goddamn
emperor...

MKSheppard wrote:

verilon wrote:I talked with some people and I only have one thing to say - I hate the Secret Service.

Same here. If I ever became president, my first order would be to
disband the secret service, open up Pennslyvania avenue again, and
start riding in open-topped limos again.

I mean for christ's sake, it's not like we're electing a goddamn
emperor...

It's not?

verilon wrote: It's not?

Why do you think we have a fucking VICE President, and a very detailed
chain of succession that goes all the way down to the fregging SECRETARY
OF AGRICULTURE?

MKSheppard wrote:

verilon wrote: It's not?

Why do you think we have a fucking VICE President, and a very detailed
chain of succession that goes all the way down to the fregging SECRETARY
OF AGRICULTURE?

Was meant to be a semi-joke, but ok.

The Secret Service was only doing their job and it was perfectly within the confines of the law. Lay off.

verilon wrote:I talked with some people and I only have one thing to say - I hate the Secret Service.

DoZ - doesn't bother me a bit. But when you're in New Mexico.. chances of getting anywhere near the POTUS when you're a guy like him are slim to none.

I believe I recall one discussion with DoZ on ASVS about Nixon, during which she declared that the President should be above certain areas of the law. I could be mistaken, though...

HemlockGrey wrote:The Secret Service was only doing their job and it was perfectly within the confines of the law. Lay off.

verilon wrote:I talked with some people and I only have one thing to say - I hate the Secret Service.

Laid off enough for you?

Pablo Sanchez wrote:

verilon wrote:I talked with some people and I only have one thing to say - I hate the Secret Service.

DoZ - doesn't bother me a bit. But when you're in New Mexico.. chances of getting anywhere near the POTUS when you're a guy like him are slim to none.

I believe I recall one discussion with DoZ on ASVS about Nixon, during which she declared that the President should be above certain areas of the law. I could be mistaken, though...

I'm pretty sure I never said that. IIRC I was actually arguing that it would have been better to have a system of immunity from prosecution for elected officials, where they could only be tried for crimes committed in office after they'd left office - IE, that their service in their post couldn't be interrupted by the accusation of a potential crime. (Though you could hit them with the book once they left office if they deserved it.)