Are we becoming a police state?

[Junkmanme]

I don't know the particulars, but I can guarantee THIS: With 70 rounds shot into him...he ain't gonna survive.

-Junkmanme-

 

[Dunkopf]

Quote:
If there is a SWAT team breaking into your home I think you would be wise to not resist. Resisiting will get you killed. Being right doesn't do any good if you're dead.

Except in this case, there is a group of home invasion robbers posing as SWAT team and rob them. Jose's wife's family had been hit by this group. He was merely trying to protect his family and they fired 70 shots into him. Like it takes 70 rounds to subdue him? Then to refuse to let the paramedics treat him when they were on scene? And to top it all off most of the SWAT team in that area are ex military and all paramedic trained. They purposely let him die.

Sounds like something else was going on with that one. Unless they had automatic weapons. I'm guessing he didn't get embalmed.

 

[KristyHall]

Quote:
Except in this case, there is a group of home invasion robbers posing as SWAT team and rob them. Jose's wife's family had been hit by this group. He was merely trying to protect his family and they fired 70 shots into him. Like it takes 70 rounds to subdue him? Then to refuse to let the paramedics treat him when they were on scene? And to top it all off most of the SWAT team in that area are ex military and all paramedic trained. They purposely let him die.

Sounds like something else was going on with that one. Unless they had automatic weapons. I'm guessing he didn't get embalmed.

sounds like it to me too

 

[Happy Chooks]

Quote:
He was still alive. His wife pleaded with them for an hour to let the paramedics in - they refused. The paramedics report supports her story too. They were on scene in 3 minutes and not allowed to go in until after an hour.

 

[KristyHall]

Quote:
He was still alive. His wife pleaded with them for an hour to let the paramedics in - they refused. The paramedics report supports her story too. They were on scene in 3 minutes and not allowed to go in until after an hour.

did they get in trouble for this?

 

[dacjohns]

Quote:
About 2006, give or a take a year, didn't the Supreme Court say it could be done?

dacjohn,

I would need to see a "citation" on such a decision. I have my doubts because such a "transaction" with a Private Developer on Eminent Domain acquired properties conflicts DIRECTLY with the portion of our Constitution which enables "Eminent Domain".

-Junkmanme-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

I know wikipedia isn't an authority but you can do just as well as I can using Google. This is the case I referred to. If I am mistaken about my assumptions please let me know and how I am mistaken.

 

[dacjohns]

Quote:
If there is a SWAT team breaking into your home I think you would be wise to not resist. Resisiting will get you killed. Being right doesn't do any good if you're dead.

Except in this case, there is a group of home invasion robbers posing as SWAT team and rob them. Jose's wife's family had been hit by this group. He was merely trying to protect his family and they fired 70 shots into him. Like it takes 70 rounds to subdue him? Then to refuse to let the paramedics treat him when they were on scene? And to top it all off most of the SWAT team in that area are ex military and all paramedic trained. They purposely let him die.

I wasn't talking about Jose. I was talking about what I put in bold face.

 

[Junkmanme]

Quote:
dacjohn,

I would need to see a "citation" on such a decision. I have my doubts because such a "transaction" with a Private Developer on Eminent Domain acquired properties conflicts DIRECTLY with the portion of our Constitution which enables "Eminent Domain".

-Junkmanme-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

I know wikipedia isn't an authority but you can do just as well as I can using Google. This is the case I referred to. If I am mistaken about my assumptions please let me know and how I am mistaken.

dacjohns,
You were CORRECT ! I did, however note the "close vote" and notably, the Public Reaction and Wider Effect listed...including a specific "decree" from the U.S. President (Bush II ) directing that such "takings" should not take place.

However, you were absolutely right that the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision allowed this to take place.

Very Good Memory !
-Junkmanme-

 

[Junkmanme]

Although I don't know what the difference might be in the area of "Eminent Domain", it is worth noting that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Kelo case was based upon the Connecticut Constitution and NOT the U.S. Constitution. So...from a purely technical standpoint, there MAY be some differences.....Maybe.

-Junkmanme-

 

[dacjohns]

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

I know wikipedia isn't an authority but you can do just as well as I can using Google. This is the case I referred to. If I am mistaken about my assumptions please let me know and how I am mistaken.

dacjohns,
You were CORRECT ! I did, however note the "close vote" and notably, the Public Reaction and Wider Effect listed...including a specific "decree" from the U.S. President (Bush II ) directing that such "takings" should not take place.

However, you were absolutely right that the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision allowed this to take place.

Very Good Memory !
-Junkmanme-

I was between Albuquerque and Raton Pass on my way to Colorado for my daughter's wedding when I heard it on the radio. I was mad. That's why it stuck. Also the public backlash at the time although it wasn't real loud or long.