The THPD murder ANOTHER innocent person
Grouchy

Clinton, IN

#89 Jul 1, 2012
This is so sad wrote:
<quoted text>There is not enough information available to conclude the police action was unconstitional. With the plea bargains of all charged, this incident will never see a court trial by jury. If the people charged had the resources to get their cases to a jury trial, the arrest warrant would be a good starting point of evidence. Did the police overreach what they were allowed to do in the arrest warrant? If so, that could be a violation of the 4th amendment rights of the people. Why did federal agents ask for the local PD's drug search dog and handler to serve an arrest warrant? Did the show of force escalate the situation? After shots were fired, why did they assume it wasa standoff situation, and did not re-enter the building for so long? Why did they send EMT's in finally, not police officers to "clear" the building first? At this point, after almost a year, it's obvious no one will ever have to answer questions. The system is set up to insulate the officials from any accountability to the people. So was this an "unreasonable search and seizure?" It will never be determined, just like the officials want.
Why should individuals who continuously break the law and violate probation (2nd 3rd ...... chance) get this kind of speculation? Shouldn't they lose all expectations to complete privacy when they were convicted? Violation of the probation agreement should be enough to rescind their rights. Why don't you excercise your "I wish I was a lawyer" mentality on helping the truly falsely incarcerated instead of wasting it here? Because you might have to really prove yourself capable?
Let me school you

Fremont, CA

#90 Jul 1, 2012
Because these are rights that cannot be taken away. In other words, individuals intrinsically possess rights, and no one else can alienate or revoke them. Attorney General Ramsey Clark once defined inalienable rights this way: "A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you." Regardless of what a some cops think.

Liberals such as yourself, judging by the statements that you've made, believe that rights are social constructs, defended by force and open to change and improvement. Rights cannot be natural, like laws of nature, because nature enforces its laws absolutely, whereas rights are frequently broken. Rights cannot be inalienable, because governments frequently revoke rights. They cannot be God-given, because God originally blessed the rights of monarchy, genocide, polygamy, parental killing of disrespectful children, and other rights no one seriously defends today. Rights cannot be self-evident, because philosophers have been vigorously arguing over them for thousands of years. I beg to differ
Grouchy

Clinton, IN

#91 Jul 1, 2012
Let me school you wrote:
Because these are rights that cannot be taken away. In other words, individuals intrinsically possess rights, and no one else can alienate or revoke them. Attorney General Ramsey Clark once defined inalienable rights this way: "A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you." Regardless of what a some cops think.
Liberals such as yourself, judging by the statements that you've made, believe that rights are social constructs, defended by force and open to change and improvement. Rights cannot be natural, like laws of nature, because nature enforces its laws absolutely, whereas rights are frequently broken. Rights cannot be inalienable, because governments frequently revoke rights. They cannot be God-given, because God originally blessed the rights of monarchy, genocide, polygamy, parental killing of disrespectful children, and other rights no one seriously defends today. Rights cannot be self-evident, because philosophers have been vigorously arguing over them for thousands of years. I beg to differ
Criminology major, huh?
Here is a good item to remember. If I was a liberal I would be defending the criminal because he had a terrible environment as a child and because other people were to blame for his misguided deeds.
That's a liberal, son amd that isn't me. I think leniency is noted is some instances but for a habitual offender it should be off the books. If as some of you say that Seely entered into an covert deal with the Feds to gain release he was still obligated to comply.
Once you git to studyin you might begin to understand some nuances in law. In case your aren't aware, the probation agreement states what the individual cannot do and what he must do. While he is on probation he must comply and he also loses some "rights". I'm not sure why (since you haven't explained) you have a problem with a canine officer assisting at the Feds request.
This is so sad

AOL

#92 Jul 1, 2012
Grouchy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure why (since you haven't explained) you have a problem with a canine officer assisting at the Feds request.
From what was stated at the press conferences, the warrant for arrest, not search. Shadow is a drug finding dog, by all published accounts. So why was Shadow and his handler even there? Why did they let the dog and his handler take the lead? If they would have stayed within the limits of the warrant, Officer Long would be alive, and Shadow would be unwounded and still on duty. These questions are not meant to be critical of Officer Long, but of those superior officers who put him in that disasterous situation.
Huh

Chicago, IL

#93 Jul 1, 2012
Grouchy wrote:
<quoted text>
Criminology major, huh?
Here is a good item to remember. If I was a liberal I would be defending the criminal because he had a terrible environment as a child and because other people were to blame for his misguided deeds.
That's a liberal, son amd that isn't me. I think leniency is noted is some instances but for a habitual offender it should be off the books. If as some of you say that Seely entered into an covert deal with the Feds to gain release he was still obligated to comply.
Once you git to studyin you might begin to understand some nuances in law. In case your aren't aware, the probation agreement states what the individual cannot do and what he must do. While he is on probation he must comply and he also loses some "rights". I'm not sure why (since you haven't explained) you have a problem with a canine officer assisting at the Feds request.
And the guy with the most liberal-fascist views denies that he's a liberal all of the sudden! Woah this just keeps getting better and better. Maybe you should get a job and a life. Just like your that sign in your yard said "Change that you can believe in."

“Licensed Fool”

Since: May 12

Not laughing with you...

#94 Jul 2, 2012
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
And the guy with the most liberal-fascist views denies that he's a liberal all of the sudden! Woah this just keeps getting better and better. Maybe you should get a job and a life. Just like your that sign in your yard said "Change that you can believe in."
I think that you don't know what the word liberal means.

“Licensed Fool”

Since: May 12

Not laughing with you...

#95 Jul 2, 2012
This is so sad wrote:
<quoted text>There is not enough information available to conclude the police action was unconstitional. With the plea bargains of all charged, this incident will never see a court trial by jury. If the people charged had the resources to get their cases to a jury trial, the arrest warrant would be a good starting point of evidence. Did the police overreach what they were allowed to do in the arrest warrant? If so, that could be a violation of the 4th amendment rights of the people. Why did federal agents ask for the local PD's drug search dog and handler to serve an arrest warrant? Did the show of force escalate the situation? After shots were fired, why did they assume it wasa standoff situation, and did not re-enter the building for so long? Why did they send EMT's in finally, not police officers to "clear" the building first? At this point, after almost a year, it's obvious no one will ever have to answer questions. The system is set up to insulate the officials from any accountability to the people. So was this an "unreasonable search and seizure?" It will never be determined, just like the officials want.
The Constitution does not prevent all searches, only unreasonable searches. A search is unreasonable when it is not based on probable cause. The arrest warrant means that a judge found probable cause. Searches of a person's residence for the person who lives there when that person is wanted on a warrant have been repeatedly found to be reasonable by the appellate courts. Add to that the guy was on probation. People on probation typically have to waive rights to search and seizure protection as a term of getting probation instead of sitting in jail. Thus there is plenty of information to conclude that the search was consitutional.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#96 Jul 2, 2012
I have to agree, the ONE poster under different names calls everyone who points out his errors a Liberal. He must have flunked high school Gov't class and is retaking it next semester cause he sure as hell doesn't know what a Liberal platform is.
Republicrat

Carmel, IN

#97 Jul 2, 2012
Speaking of democrats, I've noticed a change in your average liberal over the years, the libs used to be more about equality and power to the people and the gov staying out of peoples lives. But anymore the libs al say that "their should be a law against _____(fill in the blank).. quite a change from yesterday.

Liberals: for every reaction there is an equal and opposite government program.
They are also the first people to stand up for government intrusion and police brutality too I've noticed. i think that's why the name caller keeps saying that you guys are liberals. He's undermining the fact that people that stand up for police brutality come from all walks of life with different reasons for doing so and that not everyone has "evil" intentions for doing it either.

Not that I choose the lesser of 2 evils anymore. I wish that when people run for office, that they would just run as "Ring tail coot" instead of "Ring tail coot -(R)" or "Ring tail coot -(D)" since those labels mean nothing and are misleading.

Sorry for getting off topic.

Since: Oct 10

Linton, IN

#98 Jul 2, 2012
anonymous wrote:
I am his aunt, and he did NOT deserve to be killed that way. He wasnt a violent person, he did drugs and alcohol.
Regardless of all, I am sorry for you loss.
Momma

Clinton, IN

#99 Jul 2, 2012
I think everybody is sorry that a young man is dead. It's another thing to be critical of one side and not both. Most of us wish Compton had just accepted his punishment or better yet never gotten into trouble to begin with.
The sad facts are society needs rules in order to maintain peace. If the rules are broken, especially over and over a rational and intelligent person would have to expect punishment. I agree there are ridiculous rules but in all honesty the majority of the population has little common sense and can't manage without supervision.
If we lived in a country where all are oppressed then yes some would have to be sacrificed to bring equality to all but that isn't the case in the USA.
Tutone

Chicago, IL

#101 Jul 2, 2012
Momma wrote:
I think everybody is sorry that a young man is dead. It's another thing to be critical of one side and not both. Most of us wish Compton had just accepted his punishment or better yet never gotten into trouble to begin with.
The sad facts are society needs rules in order to maintain peace. If the rules are broken, especially over and over a rational and intelligent person would have to expect punishment. I agree there are ridiculous rules but in all honesty the majority of the population has little common sense and can't manage without supervision.
If we lived in a country where all are oppressed then yes some would have to be sacrificed to bring equality to all but that isn't the case in the USA.
Awww! your post started out nice and thoughtful then went south.
Evolouie

Anadarko, OK

#102 Jul 2, 2012
Momma wrote:
I think everybody is sorry that a young man is dead. It's another thing to be critical of one side and not both. Most of us wish Compton had just accepted his punishment or better yet never gotten into trouble to begin with.
The sad facts are society needs rules in order to maintain peace. If the rules are broken, especially over and over a rational and intelligent person would have to expect punishment. I agree there are ridiculous rules but in all honesty the majority of the population has little common sense and can't manage without supervision.
If we lived in a country where all are oppressed then yes some would have to be sacrificed to bring equality to all but that isn't the case in the USA.
Yes society needs rules, however society does not need useless rules and a waste of Billions of dollars a year on the so called WAR ON DRUGS.
The war on drugs is just like the 2 bush wars, they can not be won no matter how much money we spend or how many lives we sacrifice.
It is time to end the 2 bush wars and the war on drugs.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#103 Jul 2, 2012
Evolouie wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes society needs rules, however society does not need useless rules and a waste of Billions of dollars a year on the so called WAR ON DRUGS.
The war on drugs is just like the 2 bush wars, they can not be won no matter how much money we spend or how many lives we sacrifice.
It is time to end the 2 bush wars and the war on drugs.
Sadly, the war on drugs has been lost. All that can be done now is try to keep the users within some boundaries.
Benny Hill

Houston, TX

#104 Jul 2, 2012
The war on drugs wasn't meant to be won, it was meant to be continued and run the economy in the form of policing jobs and make the prison industry rich. In the midwest, the approach to fighting drug abuse is more focused on harsh punishment rather than getting to the root of the problem and actually helping the people who do waste time with drugs to get off of them. You know what they say about trying the same things over and over and expecting different results... Regan, Bush, Clinton, and so on have only compounded the problem even more.
X Smoker

Terre Haute, IN

#105 Jul 3, 2012
The war on drugs may have been lost but by golly they won the war on cigarette smoking.
Sure

Fremont, CA

#106 Jul 3, 2012
X Smoker wrote:
The war on drugs may have been lost but by golly they won the war on cigarette smoking.
Your damn right! Keep in mind that making sure that people can't smoke is only step one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_mov...
Sure

Fremont, CA

#107 Jul 3, 2012
Heil Terre Haute!!
Momma

Clinton, IN

#108 Jul 3, 2012
Why do you whiners/weiners insist on living in Terre Haute if you dislike it? Doesn't that fit the old "doing the same thing over and over..." catagory.

“The Ministry of Information”

Since: Jan 12

Terre Haute, In

#109 Jul 3, 2012
Sure wrote:
<quoted text>
Your damn right! Keep in mind that making sure that people can't smoke is only step one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_mov...
I take it that it's acceptable for you to post links to Wikipedia?

I wonder if YOU will get harassed and berated now?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

West Terre Haute Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Tom and melissa 29 min Sister sister 1
Dane Norton and Leann Cambelle Thu Just saying 7
Brittany Stevens Jul 20 Cousin 4
Dane Norton and Courtney hoole??? Jul 18 Unknown 12
Michelle roberts Jul 18 Serioysly 3
Meth heads Jul 18 Agreed 40
News ATV wreck: 'I lost both of my best friends' Jul 17 alllivesmatter 1

West Terre Haute Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

West Terre Haute Mortgages