The third amendment, the one that we thought wasn't really relevant anymore. Just got discarded

[NOK222]

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/03/59061.htm

Now the list is complete

[Malcador]

They should send these cops to Iraq or Afghanistan for a tour.

[Walsingham]

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/03/59061.htm

 

Now the list is complete

Even the story you link to says it prohibits the quartering of soldiers.

 

When the Third Amendment was written the quartering of troops among civilians was a serious problem. Troops were frequently convicts, in ill health, drunk, rapacious etc etc. They might end up living with you years. Having one suddenly dropped on you was a cause for unrest and so forth. Hence it seems the constitution took care to allay fears about it.

 

However, at the time of the amendment Robert Peel - inventor of the the entire concept of police - hadn't even been born. To the best of my knowledge the only paid permanent officers of the peace in the World were the Bow Street Runners. And there were only six of them. So I find it exceptionally hard to believe the constitution was talking about police.

 

I presume you know the story about the boy crying wolf?

[NOK222]

 

 

And there were only six of them. So I find it exceptionally hard to believe the constitution was talking about police.

 

 

Not soldiers

 

 

Soldiers

 

...

 

The militarization of our police that's been going on since 2001 scares me, an actual troop. So while maybe this doesn't necessarily break the third amendment, it's still pretty bad. 

 

 

 

I presume you know the story about the boy crying wolf?

And we know how this ended right?

Edited July 4, 2013 by NKKKK

[Walsingham]

If you'd posted a thread about the militarisation of the US police and the complete misuse of SWAT I'd be weighing in on your side.

 

But you blew the big f***ing LOOK OUT THE CONSTITUTION IS BEING RAPED horn.

 

Not cool.

[NOK222]

 

 

But you blew the big f***ing LOOK OUT THE CONSTITUTION IS BEING RAPED horn.

But it is!

[Walsingham]

 

 

 

But you blew the big f***ing LOOK OUT THE CONSTITUTION IS BEING RAPED horn.

But it is!

 

 

Not in that example it ain't.

 

If you want to add an amendment for this thing which has been invented since the constitution was written - cops - then crack on. That's what amendments are for.

[Nepenthe]

 

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/03/59061.htm

 

Now the list is complete

Even the story you link to says it prohibits the quartering of soldiers.

 

When the Third Amendment was written the quartering of troops among civilians was a serious problem. Troops were frequently convicts, in ill health, drunk, rapacious etc etc. They might end up living with you years. Having one suddenly dropped on you was a cause for unrest and so forth. Hence it seems the constitution took care to allay fears about it.

 

However, at the time of the amendment Robert Peel - inventor of the the entire concept of police - hadn't even been born. To the best of my knowledge the only paid permanent officers of the peace in the World were the Bow Street Runners. And there were only six of them. So I find it exceptionally hard to believe the constitution was talking about police.

 

I presume you know the story about the boy crying wolf?

 

Frankly, I think your argument speaks more for including the popos under the heading of soldiers in this case than against it.

[ManifestedISO]

Hokum. There is no chance that those events are true to the letter of the complaint.  

[Walsingham]

You mean, they couldn't ban the polis because they didn't know about them? Seems to me that your interpretation could lead to almost anything being declared unconstitutional. There would be technogeddon mayhem.

 

I really think the USA needs to grow up and stop treating the Constitution like a holy unalterable text. Quite apart from any pragmatic argument, the great holy constitution SAYS it's supposed to be amended.

[Enoch]

There is precedent applying the 3rd Amendment to the National Guard.  But it's pretty much the only federal case whose holding has rested on the 3rd Amendment, ever.  So the question of whether it applies to ordinary local police officers is an open one. 

 

Engblom v. Carey.  There was a strike by prison guards in upstate New York in 1979.  The governor activated the National Guard to keep the prisons operating.  One particular prison had staff housing for some of its officers.  The prison officials kicked the striking officers out of their staff housing and let the Nat'l Guardsmen stay there.  The court (2nd Circuit Court of Appeals) stated without much explanation that the Guardsmen counted as "soldiers" under the meaning of the 3rd Am.  The difficult part of the case was whether the striking officers had a sufficient possessory interest in their residences, given that the apartments were owned by the prison.  They ruled that there was a sufficient interest, and that the officers were entitled to 3rd Am. protections.  (Also, the court applied "incorporation doctrine" to the 3rd Amendment, applying it against a state government for the first time.  Feel free to ignore this point unless you want to get into a long discussion of jurisprudential history.) 

 

I haven't looked into this in any kind of depth, but Wals' account sounds like one credible approach (but not the only one) that an American court might take.  Also, if even half of what the complaint says actually happened, the plaintiffs have all kinds of legal theories they can use to recover, of which the 3rd Amendment is almost certainly the most tenuous. 

 

 

(Also, it's quite silly take a slanted account of one action by some local cops in one town and blow it up into a statement about the "irrelevance" of an entire national Constitutional right.  The 2nd Amendment doesn't disappear every time somebody gets arrested on a firearms charge.) 

Edited July 4, 2013 by Enoch

[Nepenthe]

You mean, they couldn't ban the polis because they didn't know about them? Seems to me that your interpretation could lead to almost anything being declared unconstitutional. There would be technogeddon mayhem.

 

I really think the USA needs to grow up and stop treating the Constitution like a holy unalterable text. Quite apart from any pragmatic argument, the great holy constitution SAYS it's supposed to be amended.

Mmh, we've got some laws going back to 1734 in Finland, so we occasionally have to deal with these issues. You'd have to look at the purpose more than a dictionary definition. In this case, I'd say it would boil down to whether there would be the need for such a protection in general (us courts would probably say yes) and whether the police are sufficiently similar to soldiers/militia/etc. I could argue it both ways, but the fact that there were no police at the time wouldn't automatically put them outside the scope.

[HoonDing]

Were there dogs running loose?

[Walsingham]

I got a bit carried away there, and I'm grateful to both Enoch and Nep for restoring the dignity of the discussion with their reasoned analyses. I apologise if I went too far.

 

I can see entirely the court's point on Engblom vs. Carey. After all State militias were far more similar to the Framers' notion of what the US Army was! Ownership of the property should not affect the tenant's right to treat it as their home. I would have thought.

 

On reflection I can see Nepenthe's broader point that these are armed servants of the State, and that this was the threat the Framers intended to guard against.

 

However, I remain firm in my objection that the Constitution needs to be updated with reviews. Indeed I would say the complexity of modern society and technology positively demands a comprehensive review. A love of liberty is just as precious today as ever it was, but the threats to it have evolved far beyond the wit of those poor old buggers in  powdered wigs.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Walsingham

[Hurlshort]

The plaintiff has a a great lawsuit here if there is a shred of truth to the case, but a couple cops in a small city in Nevada hardly merit enough consideration to call this an attack on the constitution.

[Nepenthe]

I got a bit carried away there, and I'm grateful to both Enoch and Nep for restoring the dignity of the discussion with their reasoned analyses. I apologise if I went too far.

 

I can see entirely the court's point on Engblom vs. Carey. After all State militias were far more similar to the Framers' notion of what the US Army was! Ownership of the property should not affect the tenant's right to treat it as their home. I would have thought.

 

On reflection I can see Nepenthe's broader point that these are armed servants of the State, and that this was the threat the Framers intended to guard against.

 

However, I remain firm in my objection that the Constitution needs to be updated with reviews. Indeed I would say the complexity of modern society and technology positively demands a comprehensive review. A love of liberty is just as precious today as ever it was, but the threats to it have evolved far beyond the wit of those poor old buggers in  powdered wigs.

Sure, but often updating the wording just not viable for one reason or another, often because somebody would try to sneak something in that the others wouldn't want etc. Sometimes you just have to live with really old rules and deal with problems like these. There's no date of expiry on laws. And a good thing, remember the fiscal cliff?

[Walsingham]

Fiscal Cliff sounds like a regular in my local pub. He'd go on and on about the gold standard while eating cheese and onion sandwiches - hold the cheese.

[Volourn]

These scumbags are peices of crap. The house owner should have shot every single last one of them has they evilly, immorally, selfishly, scumbag, and illegally intruded his home and proceed to threaten, physically assult, threatened to murder, stole, commited animal abuse, and destroyed his private property. Nothing more than gang behaviour should be punished like gangs.

 

 Pieces of crap liek this have no right to wear the unfiorm and spit on the good people who do wear the uniform honourably. A pox on them and all their evil supporters.

[Rostere]

So, somebody broke a now irrelevant rule from a document hundreds of years old? Seems like you need to update your laws.

 

Those cops seems like they have made quite a mess out of this situation, but there is no reason they should not be able to enter an innocent person's house when arresting another individual. I assume this includes that they pay for any damage to the house.

[Hurlshort]

The police in the US need to have just cause or a warrant to enter any private property in the US.  These two officers clearly had neither, hence the lawsuit.

[Walsingham]

These scumbags are peices of crap. The house owner should have shot every single last one of them has they evilly, immorally, selfishly, scumbag, and illegally intruded his home and proceed to threaten, physically assult, threatened to murder, stole, commited animal abuse, and destroyed his private property. Nothing more than gang behaviour should be punished like gangs.

 

 Pieces of crap liek this have no right to wear the unfiorm and spit on the good people who do wear the uniform honourably. A pox on them and all their evil supporters.

 

So YOU'RE the reason I have this weird itching?

[Volourn]

"Those cops seems like they have made quite a mess out of this situation, but there is no reason they should not be able to enter an innocent person's house when arresting another individual. I assume this includes that they pay for any damage to the house."

 

there was no criminal - suspected or otherwise - in the house. they wanted to use the house and were told no by the owner which is his right.

 

 

It be a completely different story if, say, theyw ere pursuing a suspect who ran into the house and they followed. Of coruse, that wouldn't give the cops the right to treat innocents in the manner they did, but they would be more justfiied in entering the house.

 

Also, cops cannot enter privated wellings without warrants unless there is IMMEDIATE danger potential (ie;. crazy person with a gun threateneding to kill someone inside said house).

 

Stop defending the scumbags.

[Walsingham]

Not very reassured that you like my itching, Volo.

 

Hurlshot has already said that these cops probably got it wrong and normal procedures will see they get nailed. Just not on the third amendment.

 

On a less grand personal note, what kind of bastard would refuse to help the cops stop a case of serious domestic abuse? By the sound of this rather one sided article the police wanted to get (quote) "a tactical advantage." In other words they either wanted his house so they could catch the suspect unawares, and or not get shot by him in the process. So we have a plaintiff who doesn't give a **** about either the victim or the people trying to help them. So, I in turn don't really give a **** about their feelings. Or their pet dog.

[Rostere]

"Those cops seems like they have made quite a mess out of this situation, but there is no reason they should not be able to enter an innocent person's house when arresting another individual. I assume this includes that they pay for any damage to the house."

 

there was no criminal - suspected or otherwise - in the house. they wanted to use the house and were told no by the owner which is his right.

 

 

It be a completely different story if, say, theyw ere pursuing a suspect who ran into the house and they followed. Of coruse, that wouldn't give the cops the right to treat innocents in the manner they did, but they would be more justfiied in entering the house.

 

Also, cops cannot enter privated wellings without warrants unless there is IMMEDIATE danger potential (ie;. crazy person with a gun threateneding to kill someone inside said house).

 

Stop defending the scumbags.

 

It's hard to say what was right or wrong unless you know more about the situation. I presume that they had authorization from higher level and that entering said dude's house was crucial to arresting the other person without anyone coming to any harm.

 

If it was really unneccessary to enter the house in the first place, then of course they shouldn't have. But if that is the case, this is not a particularly interesting discussion to begin with.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Rostere

[Hurlshort]

I doubt they had authorization, they would need a judge to sign off on it.

 

It's funny that Volourn is in complete agreement with me here but is yelling at me in the other cop thread

 

 

edit:  I can see why someone would not let the cops stakeout in their house.  It gets you involved in a domestic violence case.  What happens if the neighbor doesn't go to prison, or gets out in a year, and you still have to live next to him/her?

Edited July 4, 2013 by Hurlshot