• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Elian raid lawsuit tossed

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Elian raid lawsuit tossed
Thursday, August 26, 2004 Posted: 11:26 AM EDT (1526 GMT)

MIAMI, Florida (AP) -- A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit claiming federal agents used excessive force in an armed raid to seize Elian Gonzalez at the home of his Miami relatives four years ago.

An order issued Monday by U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke concluded the six agents who conducted the raid were legally immune to the lawsuit, and she found no constitutional violations.

"We're pleased with the judge's decision," said Charles Miller, a Washington spokesman with the Department of Justice.

The relatives were considering an appeal.

"We are shocked and disappointed by the court's decision," Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said in a statement Wednesday. The legal group had sued on behalf of Elian's cousin, great-uncle and great-uncle's wife. "It's a shame the Bush administration defends these unlawful acts by the Clinton administration."

Federal agents removed Elian, then 6, from the family's home before dawn in April 2000, five months after he was rescued from the Atlantic. His mother and others died trying to reach Florida by boat.

The lawsuit alleged the raid team broke down the front door unannounced, sprayed irritating gas, held people at gunpoint and shouted obscenities at unarmed relatives, supporters and news media.

An Associated Press photograph taken during the raid showed a frightened Elian in a closet, shrinking away from an armed marshal in SWAT clothing. The boy, now 10, was returned home to Cuba with his father after the raid.

link

In other news; The 4th Amendment to the Constitution is once again meaningless and federal officials are immune to the Constitution even if found guilty.

Note: There are plenty of people whom hold office on all levels of government (municipal, county, state and federal) whom are immune to one law or another.
 
It was pretty clear that the boy should have been returned to his father, IIRC. Though I don't approve of the tactics use (over kill anyone?) the people who had the boy had indicated they would not abide by any rulings. Those special units tend to use absolute overwhelming force to avoid any casualties (well, of their own that is 😀)

edit:spelling
 
I agree with Arsbanned. The boy should have been returned. He has no legal standing to be here and it was ruled that he be returned to his father. The government tactics were WAY extreme, but within the legal limit.

🙂
 
I think there's a misunderstanding here about the nature of a suit against agents of the United States.

In general, a federal employee acting in the scope of his employment is immune from lawsuits (as in this case) - the same protection extends to military members. Actually, this is the reason I, as a military attorney, don't need to carry malpractice insurance (the same is true of military doctors).

If, for example, these federal marshals (or any other cops, firemen, etc.) were individually liable for alleged injuries they caused in the course of their duties, they'd need to carry enormous amounts of insurance, because it's foreseeable they may hurt or even kill people as part of their jobs. I don't see this as anything sinister - it's an integral part of effective law enforcement.

Although the federal government generally enjoys sovereign immunity, there are statutes that permit recovery against the government. If someone feels that a federal employee has wronged them, they can file an administrative claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, or one of a number of other such acts, and, if the claim is denied, or 6 months passes without a response from the government, they can file suit in any federal district court, as apparently happened here.

In the case of Elian Gonzales, a number of the men living in the house with Elian had criminal convictions, and one, IIRC, had a felony conviction for robbery. They had repeatedly indicated an unwillingness to turn the boy over, which IMO was both legally and morally indefensible. Like many Cuban-Americans (and I'm not picking on Cuban-Americans), they felt so negative toward Cuba that they had refused to turn Elian over to the government under any circumstances.

I think it's unfortunate they put the government in that situation, and it led to some images that were disturbing to the public (I remember one in particular, in which a deputy marshal with an MP5 grabbed Elian out of the closet), but I don't see that they had much choice, nor do I see anything "extreme" about the tactics used. I'd rather see a child removed through decisive force than see an innocent federal marshal be shot in the face by one of Elian's deadbeat relatives. Fortunately, nobody was hurt.

From my perspective, the "bad guy" in the Elian Gonzales story was his mother, who drowned as she tried to get to the United States with Elian. I think it was incredibly reckless and irresponsible to risk both their lives, particularly since, as I recall, she was coming to the US to be with her boyfriend.
 
Right on the money DonVito.

I couldn't have said it better. The kids mother was a real piece of work. She kidnaps her son and risks his life so she can spend time with her boyfriend. I have little pity for her fate. As far as the officers. They did their job in the manner in which they had been trained, and did it well.
 
Good points.

However you guys forget something.

In order to enter a home for any reason a warrant must first be issued by the court.

In order to execute a warrant you must have been issued one by the court.

No warrant was issued.

It wasn't issued because the 11th circuit court refused to issue one.

It puts the 4th Amendment into full effect without having that warrant.

It doesn't matter if the boy should have been returned or not and it doesn't matter if he didn't properly arrived in the country.

The point is the court said the government had no right to enter and the government ignored that.

Anyway you slice it their actions were in direct contradiction to the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.
 
Originally posted by: Aelius

No warrant was issued.

It wasn't issued because the 11th circuit court refused to issue one.

What are you talking about? This is the search warrant. There was no need to go to the 11th Circuit, and indeed it would have been highly unusual to approach an appellate court for such a warrant. The Gonzales warrant was, as such warrants typically are, signed by a federal magistrate judge.
 
I find it interesting DonVito that you took such a cavalier attitude toward Heartsurgeon and his salary in previous threads, then go on to say you enjoy the protection of not having to carry malpractice insurance.. and neither do military Doctors. So his career can come to a screaching halt with one mistake, and you enjoy protections he does not have. I assume the military also paid for your education.. want to guess who paid for his? My guess is he did. Seems kind of hypocritical to me.. but, its kind of off topic I guess.
 
Originally posted by: Crimson
I find it interesting DonVito that you took such a cavalier attitude toward Heartsurgeon and his salary in previous threads, then go on to say you enjoy the protection of not having to carry malpractice insurance.. and neither do military Doctors. So his career can come to a screaching halt with one mistake, and you enjoy protections he does not have. I assume the military also paid for your education.. want to guess who paid for his? My guess is he did. Seems kind of hypocritical to me.. but, its kind of off topic I guess.

This sounds more like a PM topic than a public-post topic to me. As such, I will also PM you my answer.

The military did not contribute a dime for my education, and I have made all my student-loan payments from my comparatively meager pay. Apparently your own lack of military service has led you to presume something incorrect, re. my student loans.

As an attorney, I am required to carry a license that can be suspended or taken away for malpractice. I pay the state of California $395 per year, out of my pocket, for the privilege to practice law. My military status has nothing to do with this, although I can't be sued for malpractice. As such, my professional life can also "come to a screeching halt" in the event of a malpractice claim.

I don't see how my post is hypocritical. HS presumably makes several hundred thousand dollars per year (which, as I've said before, he may well deserve). You can look up my pay here (I am an O-3 with 5+ years of service), but suffice it to say it's a lot less than that. It's also less than I'd make as a civilian attorney. I wanted to serve my country, so I made that sacrifice. Military doctors do the same thing. I joined the Air Force after I graduated law school and passed the Bar (statistically the second most difficult one in the US, as it happens).

By way of illustration, a military surgeon with my level of experience would make somewhat more than me (doctors, unlike JAGs, get "pro pay," basically specialty pay for their medical training), somewhere in the ballpark of $70-80K, depending on locality (part of our pay is a location-based non-taxable housing allowance, so our pay varies depending where we're stationed), but would not have to pay for malpractice insurance. HS presumably makes hundreds of thousands per year. I'm not picking on him - I have never second-guessed his pay - but I can't feel a lot of sympathy because he is burdened with having to pay for malpractice insurance.

Do you really think this warranted a public post?
 
I don't like the "militarization" of our police at home. Looks too much like nazi germany in videos instead of "protect and serve"

I understand officer safty is important but they go way overboard at times. Like this 80 yr old blind old lady getting slammed by police and losing an eye.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf?/base/news/1082807738251705.xml

Even blind old ladies terrify the cops
Sunday, April 25, 2004
S he was 71 years old.


She was blind.

She needed her 94-year-old mother to come to her rescue.

And in the middle of the dogfight -- in which Eunice Crowder was pepper-sprayed, Tasered and knocked to the ground by Portland's courageous men in blue -- the poor woman's fake right eye popped out of its socket and was bouncing around in the dirt.

How vicious and ugly can the Portland police get? Ladies and gentlemen, I think we have a winner. This 2003 case is so blatant, the use of force so excessive, the threat of liability so intimidating that the city just approved a $145,000 settlement.

But all those gung-ho fans of the cops can relax. Nothing has changed. Nothing will upset the status quo.

The cops aren't apologizing.

The cops aren't embarrassed.

The cops haven't been disciplined.

And the cops are still insisting, to the bitter end, that they "reasonably believed" this blind ol' bat was a threat to their safety and macho culture.

Eunice Crowder, you see, didn't follow orders. Eunice was uncooperative. Worried a city employee was hauling away a family heirloom, a 90-year-old red toy wagon, she had the nerve to feel her way toward the trailer in which her yard debris was being tossed.

Enter the police. Eunice, who is hard of hearing, ignored the calls of Officers Robert Miller and Eric Zajac to leave the trailer. When she tried, unsuccessfully, to bite the hands that were laid on her, she was knocked to the ground.

When she kicked out at the cops, she was pepper-sprayed in the face with such force that her prosthetic marble eye was dislodged. As she lay on her stomach, she was Tased four times with Zajac's electric stun gun.

And when Nellie Scott, Eunice's 94-year-old mother, tried to rinse out her daughter's eye with water from a two-quart Tupperware bowl, what does Miller do? According to Ernie Warren Jr., Eunice's lawyer, the cop pushed Nellie up against a fence and accused her of planning to use the water as a weapon.

Paranoia runs deep. Into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid . . .

Afraid and belligerent. "Cops have changed," Warren said. "When I grew up, they weren't people who huddled together and their only friends were the cops. You had access to them all the time. You weren't afraid of them."

What did Police Chief Derrick Foxworth have to say about the case? "This did not turn out the way we wanted it to turn out," Foxworth said Friday. "Looking back, and I know the officers feel this as well, they may have done something differently. We would have wanted the minimal amount of force to have been used. But I feel we need to recognize Ms. Crowder has some responsibility. She contributed to the situation."

Granted. But Eunice was 71. She was blind. That probably explains why a judge threw out all charges against her and why the city, in a stone-cold panic, settled ASAP.

"This was like fighting Ray Charles or Stevie Wonder," Warren said. "It wasn't a fair fight."

No, but it was another excuse to haul out the usual code words about the cops' "reasonable" belief that they were justified to use a "reasonable amount of force to defend themselves."

If you have a different definition of "reasonable," you just don't understand the Portland police. You need to remember the words of Robert King, head of the police union, defending Officer Jason Sery in the March shooting of James Jahar Perez:

"What sets us apart from people like most of you is that you'll never face a situation in your job where -- in less than 10 seconds -- the routine can turn to truly life-threatening," King wrote. "When that happens to us, when we have to make that ultimate split-second decision, we don't just ask for your understanding, we ask for your support."

She was 71 years old. She was blind. She was lucky, I guess, that these cops -- set apart from people like most of us -- didn't make the usual split-second decision and draw their guns.

Steve Duin: 503-221-8597; Steveduin@aol.com; 1320 S.W. Broadway, Portland, OR 97201
 
Well, Aelius, your ignorance of the law is quite astounding for someone who is trying to comment from an educated POV.

In order to enter a home for any reason a warrant must first be issued by the court.

Not true. Warrantless searches are used QUITE often, but it is anyone's guess if this situation necessitated one.

In order to execute a warrant you must have been issued one by the court.

I don't follow you here. A warrant is just a piece of paper unless signed by a judge or magistrate...

No warrant was issued.

Yes there was.

It wasn't issued because the 11th circuit court refused to issue one.

As Don_Vito mentioned I'm not sure why an appellate court would be doing this. As he also said, this is typically handled by Federal Magistrates.

I
t puts the 4th Amendment into full effect without having that warrant.

The 4th Amendment protects agaisnt unreasonable searches and seizures. There was reason to believe that Elian might be in danger of being hidden and/or smuggled away from Florida. I'm not so sure a court would buy that, but the 4th amendment deals with unreasonable searches and this search wasn't unreasonable in my eyes.

I
t doesn't matter if the boy should have been returned or not and it doesn't matter if he didn't properly arrived in the country.

Yes, it actually does. I'm not sure what type of reciprocity we share with Cuba, but I do know that a legal battle was waged and that the Federal AG's opinion was the Elian should be returned.

The point is the court said the government had no right to enter and the government ignored that.[/q[

Proof of that? I'm pretty sure the warrant and police actions were quite valid.

Anyway you slice it their actions were in direct contradiction to the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

Then you simply misunderstand the 4th amendment, rulings SINCE the 4th amendment, and most criminal regarding such things. In this instance a no-knock warrant was completely valid because of Wilson v. Arkansas, and furthermore there's the whole idea that it was pretty reasonable to assume that Elian's family was going to RESIST turning him over. Finally, the Federal Government KNEW Elian was in that house, and knew that they would resist. A tactical entry was the most efficient and rational means of entering the domicile.
 
Originally posted by: DonVito
I think there's a misunderstanding here about the nature of a suit against agents of the United States.

In general, a federal employee acting in the scope of his employment is immune from lawsuits (as in this case) - the same protection extends to military members. Actually, this is the reason I, as a military attorney, don't need to carry malpractice insurance (the same is true of military doctors).

If, for example, these federal marshals (or any other cops, firemen, etc.) were individually liable for alleged injuries they caused in the course of their duties, they'd need to carry enormous amounts of insurance, because it's foreseeable they may hurt or even kill people as part of their jobs. I don't see this as anything sinister - it's an integral part of effective law enforcement.

Although the federal government generally enjoys sovereign immunity, there are statutes that permit recovery against the government. If someone feels that a federal employee has wronged them, they can file an administrative claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, or one of a number of other such acts, and, if the claim is denied, or 6 months passes without a response from the government, they can file suit in any federal district court, as apparently happened here.

In the case of Elian Gonzales, a number of the men living in the house with Elian had criminal convictions, and one, IIRC, had a felony conviction for robbery. They had repeatedly indicated an unwillingness to turn the boy over, which IMO was both legally and morally indefensible. Like many Cuban-Americans (and I'm not picking on Cuban-Americans), they felt so negative toward Cuba that they had refused to turn Elian over to the government under any circumstances.

I think it's unfortunate they put the government in that situation, and it led to some images that were disturbing to the public (I remember one in particular, in which a deputy marshal with an MP5 grabbed Elian out of the closet), but I don't see that they had much choice, nor do I see anything "extreme" about the tactics used. I'd rather see a child removed through decisive force than see an innocent federal marshal be shot in the face by one of Elian's deadbeat relatives. Fortunately, nobody was hurt.

From my perspective, the "bad guy" in the Elian Gonzales story was his mother, who drowned as she tried to get to the United States with Elian. I think it was incredibly reckless and irresponsible to risk both their lives, particularly since, as I recall, she was coming to the US to be with her boyfriend.

No possible way I could have said it any better, so here's a :cookie: because I agree 100%. The way Elian's case was handled was with utter kid gloves, and completely followed our constitution. The only thing officers are responsible for are upholding the Constitution and upholding the law. Any emotional trauma suffered should not be something they could be sued for. The fierce resistance of Elian's family and their various threats were more than enough to show that a tactical entry was necessary.
 
Originally posted by: Mill
Well, Aelius, your ignorance of the law is quite astounding for someone who is trying to comment from an educated POV.

In order to enter a home for any reason a warrant must first be issued by the court.

Not true. Warrantless searches are used QUITE often, but it is anyone's guess if this situation necessitated one.

In order to execute a warrant you must have been issued one by the court.

I don't follow you here. A warrant is just a piece of paper unless signed by a judge or magistrate...

No warrant was issued.

Yes there was.

It wasn't issued because the 11th circuit court refused to issue one.

As Don_Vito mentioned I'm not sure why an appellate court would be doing this. As he also said, this is typically handled by Federal Magistrates.

I
t puts the 4th Amendment into full effect without having that warrant.

The 4th Amendment protects agaisnt unreasonable searches and seizures. There was reason to believe that Elian might be in danger of being hidden and/or smuggled away from Florida. I'm not so sure a court would buy that, but the 4th amendment deals with unreasonable searches and this search wasn't unreasonable in my eyes.

I
t doesn't matter if the boy should have been returned or not and it doesn't matter if he didn't properly arrived in the country.

Yes, it actually does. I'm not sure what type of reciprocity we share with Cuba, but I do know that a legal battle was waged and that the Federal AG's opinion was the Elian should be returned.

The point is the court said the government had no right to enter and the government ignored that.[/q[

Proof of that? I'm pretty sure the warrant and police actions were quite valid.

Anyway you slice it their actions were in direct contradiction to the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

Then you simply misunderstand the 4th amendment, rulings SINCE the 4th amendment, and most criminal regarding such things. In this instance a no-knock warrant was completely valid because of Wilson v. Arkansas, and furthermore there's the whole idea that it was pretty reasonable to assume that Elian's family was going to RESIST turning him over. Finally, the Federal Government KNEW Elian was in that house, and knew that they would resist. A tactical entry was the most efficient and rational means of entering the domicile.

No warrant of anykind was produced at the scene nor thereafter. They had them on national TV saying they would get a warrant then they said they didn't need one and then they said they got one.

Point is you have no idea what you are talking about Mill. You think just because some nutcase says it's "ok" then it must be "ok". What the heck happend to the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

You cannot for any reason enter a home without a warrant. The only exception to this rule is "probably" only found in some Police powers act.

There's one allowing you to chase suspects of a crime and another one allowing you to enter a home if you have evidence of a crime in progress but it isn't spelled out that vaguely to allow someone to just waltz in.

Unless you are suggesting that the 4th Amendment doesn't exist or is null and void.

Just because some right wing nutcase judge says it's ok it doesn't mean it's ok. However thank you very much for pointing out the flaw in the US Justice system.

I honestly don't care what precedent has been set by a bunch of moron judges. They should be following the Constitution in cases where it clearly tells you what can and cannot be done.

It wasn't put into the Constitution to piss judges off. It was there to protect your civil rights even if you don't think you shouldn't have them.

The fact that they ignore it is evidence enough that the Justice system is badly in need of a overhaul.

Either way thx for letting me know that such precedent was set. I'll try to avoid the US as much as possible on vacations. Not that I go there now anyway.

Oh and DonVito. There was no warrant on the scene. Nice to see them produce one eventually tho. Too bad it's illegal.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
I don't like the "militarization" of our police at home. Looks too much like nazi germany in videos instead of "protect and serve"

I understand officer safty is important but they go way overboard at times. Like this 80 yr old blind old lady getting slammed by police and losing an eye.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf?/base/news/1082807738251705.xml

Even blind old ladies terrify the cops
Sunday, April 25, 2004
S he was 71 years old.


She was blind.

She needed her 94-year-old mother to come to her rescue.

And in the middle of the dogfight -- in which Eunice Crowder was pepper-sprayed, Tasered and knocked to the ground by Portland's courageous men in blue -- the poor woman's fake right eye popped out of its socket and was bouncing around in the dirt.

How vicious and ugly can the Portland police get? Ladies and gentlemen, I think we have a winner. This 2003 case is so blatant, the use of force so excessive, the threat of liability so intimidating that the city just approved a $145,000 settlement.

But all those gung-ho fans of the cops can relax. Nothing has changed. Nothing will upset the status quo.

The cops aren't apologizing.

The cops aren't embarrassed.

The cops haven't been disciplined.

And the cops are still insisting, to the bitter end, that they "reasonably believed" this blind ol' bat was a threat to their safety and macho culture.

Eunice Crowder, you see, didn't follow orders. Eunice was uncooperative. Worried a city employee was hauling away a family heirloom, a 90-year-old red toy wagon, she had the nerve to feel her way toward the trailer in which her yard debris was being tossed.

Enter the police. Eunice, who is hard of hearing, ignored the calls of Officers Robert Miller and Eric Zajac to leave the trailer. When she tried, unsuccessfully, to bite the hands that were laid on her, she was knocked to the ground.

When she kicked out at the cops, she was pepper-sprayed in the face with such force that her prosthetic marble eye was dislodged. As she lay on her stomach, she was Tased four times with Zajac's electric stun gun.

And when Nellie Scott, Eunice's 94-year-old mother, tried to rinse out her daughter's eye with water from a two-quart Tupperware bowl, what does Miller do? According to Ernie Warren Jr., Eunice's lawyer, the cop pushed Nellie up against a fence and accused her of planning to use the water as a weapon.

Paranoia runs deep. Into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid . . .

Afraid and belligerent. "Cops have changed," Warren said. "When I grew up, they weren't people who huddled together and their only friends were the cops. You had access to them all the time. You weren't afraid of them."

What did Police Chief Derrick Foxworth have to say about the case? "This did not turn out the way we wanted it to turn out," Foxworth said Friday. "Looking back, and I know the officers feel this as well, they may have done something differently. We would have wanted the minimal amount of force to have been used. But I feel we need to recognize Ms. Crowder has some responsibility. She contributed to the situation."

Granted. But Eunice was 71. She was blind. That probably explains why a judge threw out all charges against her and why the city, in a stone-cold panic, settled ASAP.

"This was like fighting Ray Charles or Stevie Wonder," Warren said. "It wasn't a fair fight."

No, but it was another excuse to haul out the usual code words about the cops' "reasonable" belief that they were justified to use a "reasonable amount of force to defend themselves."

If you have a different definition of "reasonable," you just don't understand the Portland police. You need to remember the words of Robert King, head of the police union, defending Officer Jason Sery in the March shooting of James Jahar Perez:

"What sets us apart from people like most of you is that you'll never face a situation in your job where -- in less than 10 seconds -- the routine can turn to truly life-threatening," King wrote. "When that happens to us, when we have to make that ultimate split-second decision, we don't just ask for your understanding, we ask for your support."

She was 71 years old. She was blind. She was lucky, I guess, that these cops -- set apart from people like most of us -- didn't make the usual split-second decision and draw their guns.

Steve Duin: 503-221-8597; Steveduin@aol.com; 1320 S.W. Broadway, Portland, OR 97201


Wow, I'm speechless. Only thing I can say is that if they tried to do that to my mother and grandmother, cops or not, there'd be a few less people on this Earth right now.
 
Ignoring the legal issues, and simply addressing the human issues, the boy belonged in the U.S. His family wanted him here not in a Communist dictatorship. The raid on his house was reminscent of the raid on the Branch Davidians. Mindlessly legalistic and full of words like "sovereign", "authority", etc., the Feds attacked in both cases like bulls in a china shop.

This was a child who had lost his mother who wanted to escape an oppressive dictatorship with him. Yes, she was ill prepared. But her omissions are no reason to send the child back.

The difference between what we can do and what we should do is often a wide gulf. Here the Federal Government was pursuing an iron-fisted policy which hurt the boy, IMHO.

I'm not sympathetic to the Bush or Clinton Administrations in this case.

-Robert
 
Originally posted by: chess9
Ignoring the legal issues, and simply addressing the human issues, the boy belonged in the U.S. His family wanted him here not in a Communist dictatorship. The raid on his house was reminscent of the raid on the Branch Davidians. Mindlessly legalistic and full of words like "sovereign", "authority", etc., the Feds attacked in both cases like bulls in a china shop.

This was a child who had lost his mother who wanted to escape an oppressive dictatorship with him. Yes, she was ill prepared. But her omissions are no reason to send the child back.

The difference between what we can do and what we should do is often a wide gulf. Here the Federal Government was pursuing an iron-fisted policy which hurt the boy, IMHO.

I'm not sympathetic to the Bush or Clinton Administrations in this case.

-Robert

You're using propaganda fommented hatred of an economic system to justify a son not being with his father. Isn't family one of the things we pay lip service to? And I hasten to add that Cuba wouldn't be near as bad as it is if the US would just leave them alone. The only threat Cuba poses at this point is in that they exist in defiance of the idea that any country in this hemisphere (and now beyond) can exist without kissing Washington's collective ass.
 
Originally posted by: chess9
Ignoring the legal issues, and simply addressing the human issues, the boy belonged in the U.S. His family wanted him here not in a Communist dictatorship. The raid on his house was reminscent of the raid on the Branch Davidians. Mindlessly legalistic and full of words like "sovereign", "authority", etc., the Feds attacked in both cases like bulls in a china shop.

This was a child who had lost his mother who wanted to escape an oppressive dictatorship with him. Yes, she was ill prepared. But her omissions are no reason to send the child back.

The difference between what we can do and what we should do is often a wide gulf. Here the Federal Government was pursuing an iron-fisted policy which hurt the boy, IMHO.

I'm not sympathetic to the Bush or Clinton Administrations in this case.

-Robert

For once, Robert, you and I are in complete disagreement. The fact of the matter is that Elian's mother risked both their lives, and lost hers, in what I regard as a vainglorious effort to come to the US (while, simultaneously, taking him away from his father, presumably permanently). Once she died, his father assumed responsibility for, and control over, Elian. He understandably wanted his boy brought back to Cuba, and to the extent Elian's relatives in Miami refused to turn him over, they effectively became kidnappers. As I said above, I think it's unfortunate they forced the government's hand the way they did, and that the marshals had to resort to the use of force, but I don't think that makes the raid unjustified or a bad idea.
 
Uncles and Aunts have no legal standing to hold a child against the legal parent or guardians wishes. At the point that they defied the father they became felons, and should have be prosecuted as kidnappers.

Elian had NO LEGAL status here. Furthermore, as a minor, unles his life was at risk (and it was not), he did not EVER qualify for asylum. His Father supported him, and wanted him back. Just because he came from Cuba does not mean he should be torn from his father and his home environment. That would be like saying that all kids from trailer parks should be taken from their parents and shipped to the home of a richer petty criminal relative (as were the people holding Elian) in Iowa so that the children wouldn't have to live in mobile homes. That's insane. Your economic status is not a measure of love and caring.
 
Point is you have no idea what you are talking about Mill.

I'm posting information from John Grimes J.D.(my professor who has 25 years experience in criminal law) and David W. Neubauer(author from New Orleans University). I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I'm a criminal justice major who has many credit hours in Justice Sciences, I've interned for a law firm, and I was an attorney for Teen Court before I turned 18(if you don't know what Teen Court is, read about it).

You think just because some nutcase says it's "ok" then it must be "ok".

You are putting words in my mouth, and by proxy are creating a fallacious little strawman. That is not what I think.

What the heck happend to the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

You seem to think YOU interpret the Constitution, but in reality the USSC interprets the Constitution and rules on specific instances brought to them. Miranda has been narrowed over the years from what it originally was, but has been expanded in some areas. Each "court" (Burger, Rehnquist, etc) will take a certain interpretation of the Constitution or a law, and that is what we have to follow until it changes. I'm sorry you don't understand this, but perhaps any introduction to government, law, or justice science class can help you.

You cannot for any reason enter a home without a warrant.

Again, yes you can.


The only exception to this rule is "probably" only found in some Police powers act.

No, the USSC over the years has brought new reasons why you can enter, or barred reasons why you can't. Typically warrantless searches aren't going to happen in a house, but often they do. You do realize an arrest warrant and a search incident to arrest would have been sufficient in this case? Elian's family in Miami were obstructing justice. They could get warrants for all of them(arrest warrants, not search warrants), enter the home, and then do a search incident to arrest. They would have been able to recover Elian.

There's one allowing you to chase suspects of a crime and another one allowing you to enter a home if you have evidence of a crime in progress but it isn't spelled out that vaguely to allow someone to just waltz in.

Well, there was a crime in progress, or the expectation of violence. Regardless, they did have a warrant, so any proof to the contrary? Again, I point you to Wilson v. Arkansas, for an explanation of why they didn't knock and just use a couple of guys.

Unless you are suggesting that the 4th Amendment doesn't exist or is null and void.

I haven't done that anywhere, but I am tired of you being a dumbshit[/b]. The 4th amendment does not protect against searches. It protects against UNREASONABLE searches. Again, please learn our Constitution before you start trying to interpret it. What the fvck are you doing anyway? How do you figure as a Canadian you have as much exposure as we do? Please, post your credentials.

Just because some right wing nutcase judge says it's ok it doesn't mean it's ok. However thank you very much for pointing out the flaw in the US Justice system.

Umm, what flaw you idiot? Judges have the power to INTERPRET the law. That's in our Constitution, and furthermore Marbury v. Madison shows that THEY, and THEY alone determine the Constitutionality of a law.

I honestly don't care what precedent has been set by a bunch of moron judges.

Nope, you're the moron here. Precedent is very important in the US Justice System, and I'm sure anyone here with a modicum of legal knowledge will back that up. Precedent is very typically a large considering when a Court rules on a case. You should really learn the legal system before commenting.

They should be following the Constitution in cases where it clearly tells you what can and cannot be done.

For some odd reason you can't fathom that the courts hold the power of judicial review and interpret the law. I'm not sure why, but for some odd reason you've got this idea of some mysterious 4th branch of government.

It wasn't put into the Constitution to piss judges off.

What are you talking about?

It was there to protect your civil rights even if you don't think you shouldn't have them.

Holy double negative and complete obfuscation batman! How about clarifying here?

The fact that they ignore it is evidence enough that the Justice system is badly in need of a overhaul.

No, any evidence in this discourse between you and I has been the evidence of your extreme ignorance regarding the US government and our law. r

Either way thx for letting me know that such precedent was set. I'll try to avoid the US as much as possible on vacations.

My feelings are so hurt.

Not that I go there now anyway.Oh and DonVito. There was no warrant on the scene. Nice to see them produce one eventually tho. Too bad it's illegal.

Please expound here and show proof that A). the Warrant was invalid B). there was no warrant on the scene, and C). that what they did was illegal. Proof now mind you, and not useless conjecture an babble. Perhaps my insults have been superfluous, but if anyone
ever deserved it that would have been you, Aelius.
 
Aelius has access to information to prove any and all conspiracy theories, but he does not wish to reveal his sources.

Maybe he heard about this on the History Channel.
 
Mill,

Perhaps you would like to borrow Khrushchev's shoe?

P.S. Thank you for showing what your democracy has degenerated to. It's partly thanks to people just like you.

P.P.S. Rabidskunk boy don't you have anything better to do on P&N than to troll?
 
Originally posted by: Aelius
Mill,

Perhaps you would like to borrow Khrushchev's shoe?

P.S. Thank you for showing what your democracy has degenerated to. It's partly thanks to people just like you.

P.P.S. Rabidskunk boy don't you have anything better to do on P&N than to troll?

American democracy has degenerated due to people who know the law and the constitution? No, this BOARD has degenerated due to POS trolls like yourself. :roll:
 
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Aelius
Mill,

Perhaps you would like to borrow Khrushchev's shoe?

P.S. Thank you for showing what your democracy has degenerated to. It's partly thanks to people just like you.

P.P.S. Rabidskunk boy don't you have anything better to do on P&N than to troll?

American democracy has degenerated due to people who know the law and the constitution? No, this BOARD has degenerated due to POS trolls like yourself. :roll:

If your civil rights are a measure of Democracy I'll take that as a compliment.

P.S. Your conduct on this board underlines the value of your comments.
 
Back
Top