San Francisco Does it Again!

[darkman]

Originally Posted by Bobshouse

Giving back California to Mexico is a great idea, but I doubt it will ever happen. Problem is for us voters brave enough to stick it out, we get overrun by the liberals that seem to move here at every opportunity, and the others just give up, stick their tail between their legs and move out.

I had an agreement with the wife that I would move down here for the work and after I retired we would move back. When the joyous day arrived, she refused to budge. I reminded her of the "deal" and she remains firm...

So I have to live with the ups and downs of California living for the time being. Weather is great, but after that it goes downhill pretty quick.

Come on back to the Mid-west Bob.... The change of seasons is pretty nice...
I loved the weather in Lompoc, although there is nothing better than a nice cool fall evening or the joy of a warm spring morning.. (Did that sound gay?)

[Movementarian]

Originally Posted by RedMan2

Um, I believe these limitations to strip searches have been applied elsewhere, like Riker's Island New York. So it ain't just California.

That post was meant to be taken in jest. I thought it was obvious, but I guess not. This one was meant to be taken seriously:

Originally Posted by Movementarian

Think about it this way. Jails are a controlled environment where the Government temporarily takes responsibility for the care of a person whilst their legal troubles are being addressed. As such, it is important to search the newly arrived arrestees for three very important reasons:

1. The safety of jail staff.
2. The safety of the inmate population.
3. Treating everyone in the same manner and not giving the appearance of preferential treatment.

If intake personnel were restricted from searching people for certain "minor" crimes, how long do you think it would take unscrupulous characters, who often frequent our nation's jails, from taking advantage of the situation by having all manner of contraband (weapons, drugs, mobile phones, etc) from being introduced? If you don't know, probably about 10-15 minutes.

You would also see an increase in lawsuits claiming civil rights violations, as different policies for different people would create a negative perception.

This ruling only increases the danger level in our jails, for both staff and inmates. Think about it...

[Von Nanega]

You are right. Whoever the present president is does not mitigate currently sitting judges rulings. But the current president does nominate new judges. This is how Barak Hussein Obama can effect the future rulings.

[Movementarian]

Originally Posted by Von Nanega

You are right. Whoever the present president is does not mitigate currently sitting judges rulings. But the current president does nominate new judges. This is how Barak Hussein Obama can effect the future rulings.

I have to agree with bop_steward on this one. The 9th Circuit is and absolute anomaly and it isn't just the liberal judges that have lost their minds. Senior Judge Alfred Goowin, appointed to the bench by Nixon, wrote the opinion declaring the Pledge of Allegiance violated the Establishment Clause because of the text "under God."

There are many liberal minded judges out there that make fair decisions based on law, precedent, and common sense.

[RedMan2]

Originally Posted by Movementarian

Think about it this way. Jails are a controlled environment where the Government temporarily takes responsibility for the care of a person whilst their legal troubles are being addressed. As such, it is important to search the newly arrived arrestees for three very important reasons:

1. The safety of jail staff.
2. The safety of the inmate population.
3. Treating everyone in the same manner and not giving the appearance of preferential treatment.

If intake personnel were restricted from searching people for certain "minor" crimes, how long do you think it would take unscrupulous characters, who often frequent our nation's jails, from taking advantage of the situation by having all manner of contraband (weapons, drugs, mobile phones, etc) from being introduced? If you don't know, probably about 10-15 minutes.

You would also see an increase in lawsuits claiming civil rights violations, as different policies for different people would create a negative perception.

This ruling only increases the danger level in our jails, for both staff and inmates. Think about it...

All good points, but you still have to weigh those against the individual's right to be free of an unreasonable search. You can get arrested for almost anything nowadays, even if you didn't do anything wrong. Where's that story about a judge who sent an entire courtroom to jail because one person's cell phone rang? You want to strip search them all?


You would also see an increase in lawsuits claiming civil rights violations, as different policies for different people would create a negative perception.

Well isn't that what you have with the policy of searching everyone? civil rights violations and a negative perception? So you're kinda screwed either way.

[bop_steward]

Originally Posted by RedMan2

All good points, but you still have to weigh those against the individual's right to be free of an unreasonable search. You can get arrested for almost anything nowadays, even if you didn't do anything wrong. Where's that story about a judge who sent an entire courtroom to jail because one person's cell phone rang? You want to strip search them all?


You would also see an increase in lawsuits claiming civil rights violations, as different policies for different people would create a negative perception.

Well isn't that what you have with the policy of searching everyone? civil rights violations and a negative perception? So you're kinda screwed either way.

Agree to disagree and be done with it.

[bop_steward]

Originally Posted by Von Nanega

You are right. Whoever the present president is does not mitigate currently sitting judges rulings. But the current president does nominate new judges. This is how Barak Hussein Obama can effect the future rulings.

Correct, they do nominate new judges, but not until the old judges retire or die. They do not just nominate them when they become president, there has to be an opening.

[all4114all]

Originally Posted by soundboy125

Absolutely, Those parking tickets may just be what they have been caught for, no telling what else they are up to. Heck I strip out "decent guys" everyday who are just in prison for child support, does the charge make them any less dangerous? No, they could be smuggling drugs or other forms of contraband into my secured unit (seg), or a weapon, if not to use themselves for someone else to use on ME, therefore I take no chances.

Well, after all, they gotta figure out a way to pay it somehow!!!!

I can't say I am surprised to hear such a thing. And it scares me. I feel moderately safe knowing that at some point in time these guys are getting stripped out and checked for weapons.

Oh wait, nevermind, no I don't lol. They are making their weapons on the inside.

I feel moderately safe knowing that they must deeply conceal their drugs which may cause enough discomfort that they can not run as fast as me.

Oh wait, not that either. I can't outrun a cripple without his crutches.

Well, maybe I don't feel safe. Oh yeah, that is it. Because the offenders have already been given so many freedoms and liberties that they are able to make weapons, get drugs, etc.

Now, should I go to work tomorrow? lol,

OF COURSE!!!!! It makes the public feel safer. At least someone does!

[Crosstimbers Okie]

Don't forget. YOU have Verbal Judo!