Dangerous to criticize Obama
The police eventually realized that they were wrong but they put the guy through an undoubtedly stressful experience. Safer just to shut up in future?
"The police officers who stopped Oklahoma City motorist Chip Harrison and confiscated a sign from his car told him he has a right to his beliefs, but the U.S. Secret Service "could construe this as a threat against President Obama," according to the incident report released this morning.
The sign, which read "Abort Obama Not the Unborn," was returned to Harrison later that day, the report said.
Police spokesman Steve McCool said this morning that the sign was taken in error, and Oklahoma City residents should not be worried that their First Amendment rights will be violated. He said a supervisor "intervened and quickly returned the sign" after Harrison called the police department.
Source
16 comments:
Don't forget that someone called the Secret Service on the guy, too. They met him at his house and searched the place.
I guess this is all part of the new dialogue we are supposed to be having in America about race with our minority neighbors.
Even though the big B.O. is Pro-Death, he is starring in a Pro-Life commercial.
This commercial was refused to be shown on Super Bowl because of content.
And this commercial was made by Catholics.
And here it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2CaBR3z85c
Mobius
Hello Good Gentles All!
What I can not understand is why he permitted the Secret Service to enter his domicile without a warrant. There does not appear to have been exigent circumstances so I do not believe the search could have been conducted in the absence of a warrant or homeowner permission.
As a matter of strategy I would have forced them to obtain and execute a lawful search warrant.
Pax,
InFides
That the Sercret Service was called in was simply standard operating procedure anytime a "threat", or even a possible threat, is made against the president and the police become aware of it. And yes, he was not obligated in any way to let the SS enter his home without a warrant, or at the very least, probable cause, which doesn't seem to have been present in this case.
Just out of curiosity, i would like to know the officer's race, and if he felt this was standard policy for his Police agency.
Hello Good Gentles All!
Hello Anonymous!
Well said.
What particularly disturbed me about this was the following:
"... went home where he met the Secret Service.
''When I was on my way there, the Secret Service called me and said they weren't going to ransack my house or anything ... they just wanted to (walk through the house) and make sure I wasn't a part of any hate groups."
What hate groups? What is a hate group? This answer is only slightly less vague than, "We just want to search your house to make sure you are not doing anything wrong."
The presumption of innocence is right out the window. I would pay real money to see them try to get a search warrant by arguing this way before a judge.
Although, I do agree that it was nice of them not destroy this man's property over a difference of political opinion.
What an outrage!
"Harrison said he invited the Secret Service agents into the house and they were "very cordial." "
From my perspective, even a cordial government goon politely forcing his way into my house and trampling all over my rights is still a goon.
If they want to proceed against this man then let them follow the law. Let them build a case for conducting a search and submit it to a judge for a warrant.
I become increasingly livid the more I consider the matter.
Pax,
InFides
InFides,... i don't believe the man said they "forced" their way into his house, but were invited in by him. We have no way of knowing what their response would have been had he refused them entry, although i believe they would have simply left, lacking any probable cause to go any further.
Also, the article doesn't tell us what the agents were told by the police agency. This would have a great deal to do with how they handled the situation. Based on how they acted at the mans home, they apparently realized this was just an error on the part of the officer.
"What I can not understand is why he permitted the Secret Service to enter his domicile without a warrant."
With all due respect, InFides,
If a so-called Secret Service agent put a 40-calbre automatic pistol against my forehead I'd have no problem letting him and his cohorts into my house. Hell. I'd even offer to make them coffee.
As it happens the American Secret Service Agents have a 007 Licence.
They do not have to adhere to the Constitutional rules like obtaining warrants or even have proper cause to detain an individual for an indeterminate period and/or enter his or her property.
They don't have to put a gun to your head to be intimidating. Two Secret Service agents simply showing up is plenty of intimidation for most people. Heck, I would be intimidated too.
On the other hand, as a matter of principle, I also consider it important to not allow a warrantless search. After all, the Constitution included a prohibition against such fishing expeditions for a very good reason.
Just because you're intimidated does not mean you should cave in to the pressure.
How can anyone be sure what the latest laws re prevention of terrorism etc. allow, regardless of what the Constitution may appear to say or previous understandings about warrants and rights of entry (and by which agencies), and how do you know what authority they actually have when they show up on your doorstep, or what consequences if you question it???
Hello Good Gentles All!
To those of you who do not agree that the civilian was 'forced' remember your last IRS audit? Just how nervous were you? And remember the IRS agent did not carry a firearm or have the power to black bag you.
When two Secret Service agents show up at someone's hone and 'politely ask' their way in it is no different than Don Corleone 'politely suggesting' you accept his offer.
The courts have long recognized that government officials have an inherent menace about them which can not be excused by being 'nice.'
Hello Grainnewale!
Sorry, my friend but you are wrong on the facts. They do not have and never did have extra-constitutional powers. They are obliged to follow due process and submit to court supervision when dealing with any American citizen.
This incident was, is and always will be an outrage!
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
I stand by my original post.
Pax,
InFides
As an ambulance chaser, I would have demanded that the police officer arrest me and take me to jail so that I could bond out. I would have also reminded him that it would cost me only the filing fees to sue his dumb ass and his department for violation of my constitutional rights. The Secret Service would have had to obtain a search warrant to enter my home.
And, Grainnewale is correct is saying that our Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure as well as our Fifth Amendment rights against having to answer for a felony without an indictment by a grand jury or the denial of due process by the government have been superceded by that abortion of cowardly legislation the USAPA.
Granniewale,.. Perhaps you're watching way too many TV movies?
Flu-Turd: I am glad that you are pissed off. I suffered for 8 years. It's your turn.
To ANNONIMOUS GO KISS MY TAILFEATHERS AND SCREW YOUSELF SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK
Post a Comment