You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #167: Jasonc, are you an attorney? Have you ever taken a course [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-07-08 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #96
167. Jasonc, are you an attorney? Have you ever taken a course
in criminal or Constitutional law? There is a remote possibility that someone made a phone call and falsely reported that marijuana was growing in that house. If so, the person who made the call is in trouble. Remember the case against the Mormon sect in Texas when the police moved in allegedly based on a call that reported child abuse?

Texas Rangers participated in the arrest of a Colorado woman who allegedly pretended to be a girl locked in a basement as part of their investigation into a Texas polygamist sect, ABC News has learned.

It was unclear if the Rangers believe the woman who was arrested in Colorado is the same person who made the series of phone calls to a Texas shelter that prompted police to raid the Yearning for Zion Ranch and take more than 400 sect children into state custody.

. . . .

But ABC News has learned that Texas Rangers flew to Colorado Springs, Colo., this week and participated in the arrest of a 33-year-old woman who was charged with filing a false report.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=4678143&page=1

If someone was stupid enough to call in a false report, that person will be arrested and charged.

It is more reasonable to assume that the police discovered what they assumed was the evidence of marijuana plantation through illegal surveillance. If so, they will either admit their wrong and make a deal that will probably include some changes in the police department or they will be sued and in a settlement agreement make the changes in the department. Either way, unless the police can prove that they obtained the information upon which they based their entry into that house or apartment, some changes are going to be made in the police department in that city in Texas.

We are making assumptions, but our assumptions are reasonable based on the reactions of the officers entering that house. I didn't hear a one of them say that they should look further because the evidence that marijuana was being grown was too strong to quit after discovering the lights and the pine trees. When the rest of the house was empty, they started laughing.

The officers who entered the house may or may not have been the officers that falsified the evidence. We do not know that, but someone somewhere falsified evidence. And that is the issue. Why did the police go into that house without making sure that the evidence of illegal activity in the house was strong enough to warrant arrests and the violation of the privacy of those occupying the house?

Why do you question my assumptions? What alternative explanations for the facts that you can see in the video do you have?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC