"Our citizens are at the very least protected from unreasonable search and seizure under our constitution."

But, that's a matter of opinion. Search & seizure isn't that unusual in the USA, being stuck up against a concrete wall while people stand at your back with rifles, a bit extreme, but what else could we expect from a communist country like Russia?

wow. just wow.

Russia hasn't been a Communist country for a while now. Communist isnt a catch all for every authoritarian action out there.

is able to challenge the actions of a cop!

Geez, you people. So determined to think you are victims. Any Russian would laugh their ass off at the idea you've experienced anything like a police state.

You can go to court but ultimately nothing will happen.

No cop is ever suspended? Really? No plaintiff ever gets damages? There's a lawyer in LA who handles nothing else but complaints about cops, so how come he has a profitable practice?

Geez, just off the top of my head, the idiot who was suspended in that little PA town just for a video. He hadn't even done anything but talk.

If you want examples of the Police Powers being blatantly and illegally used against US Citizens visit any OCCUPY group.

Your argument is invalid.

till they find the right bastard? I noticed the NYPD didn't do that at the Boston Marathon bombings.

I mean, there is a bit of geographic distance between the two. A couple state lines, little things.

Bob, I admire your passion for the subject, and I find your naiveté quite charming. But your arguments have passed the bottom of the barrel, and now are entering the area we normally reserve for RW types. Sure the NYPD didn't go and search everyone after the Boston Bombings. The bombings were in Boston, not New York. So if you didn't see any searches going on in New York, after the Boston Bombings, then I say congratulations. You were in another city.

I suppose it's my fault, I assumed he was talking about the times square bombing in New York. Not the bombing in another city.

you got me there, I had some Old Crow and wasn't thinking, but okay, I don't recall Boston PD lining people up against a wall looking for bombs. I apologize for failing geography 101.

Let me expand here a bit too.....

usually when a homicide bomber has done his or her dirty deed, they don't usually run off to a train station in a t shirt, and they're usually not stopped and frisked, they're usually toast with the people they killed.

Russian authorities were probably looking for Muslims, they rounded up about 100 suspects. How can you be a suspect when you're dead? I know right after 9/11 Bush allowed the roundup of Moooooslims and incarcerated them without due process, but we'd think that this kind of police work, doesn't work very well.

Pootin Tootin is going to find those he says is responsible and kill them, so I'm guessing he'll be sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan (again) and possibly other places in the world to sway flies. Maybe he'd like some help from our NSA or Snowden to find those responsible???

I have to believe Pootin Tootin is looking only for Muslims, and will use gestapo tactics on his own citizens in his witch hunt.

NYPD in Boston...
Russia is still a communist country...

I haven't made it through the rest of the thread yet.

We've missed you so much!

who?

In places like Russia, the person doesn't get to put the issue before the courts. The cops there don't have a legal standard to follow.

You get an "E" for effort.

Shooting at school, mall, theater, etc. is nothing compared to blowing people up with bombs.

By chance, did you see the same news clip I saw where Russian authorities had citizens lined up against the concrete wall, looking for more bombs? or what? People wearing tight t shirts surely can't have bomber vests, those would have been identifiable.

Putin Tootin is going to make many enemies from his citizens. Just a prediction. He'll be doing some ethnic cleansing in the near future.

Cheered on by fox news and conservatives (shouting praise be to jesus) while the government grows (homeland security), the economy tanks, and rights get shoved to the curb.

I mean, if the same activity by police is used for an acceptable situation, a shooting at a school, and only the police response to bombings are to be considered regarding police state or not, then why didn't you say that you were limiting this to bombing responses?

Very well. Here you go.

they finally found the perp hiding out in someone's boat, imagine that, so much for the 4th. alright.

Knock on door;
hello sir, we're the Boston PD, have you seen any terrorists?

Homeowner;
go away, there ain't nobody here but us chickens.

The homeowner saw his boat had been tampered with, and saw what could be blood smears on the edge of the boat, and called the police. So all the door to door searching, holding people at gunpoint, scaring the wee and poop out of people, roadblocks and military crap served exactly zero purpose.

They had given up the search, and told people to go on about their business. Then the homeowner went into his back yard, which had helicopters flying over head half the day and night, and found the signs of the suspect.

Roll on the floor laughing at that one.

Look at those videos again, do they look like they are saying may we come in and search?

was on the right track though, going door to door. But, I know people will disagree with that type of police work.

From denying the existence of a police state, to supporting the tactics of the police state. The door to door searches which resulted only in terrifying people and in presenting the world with the image of the militarized police. Again, they didn't find the baddie. In fact, the thermal scanning helicopters didn't find him either.

So we can now assume that your intent here was not to educate the users on DU on the non-existence of the police state, but to spread uncertainty and doubt about its' existence. I'll be honest, part of me wishes I was wrong, and we weren't in a police state in everything but name.

It would be easy just to sit in our homes here in the USA and ask why aren't the police doing more to find perpetrators of crimes.

Switched? not exactly.

Cops have come knocking on my door in the past, and have asked to come inside for a look. I attribute this to the location where I live. I always oblige and allow their entry because # 1, I've nothing to hide, and do not harbor criminals.

You can claim roadblocks are illegal and violate your rights too, what do you do when you enter DUI checkpoints? Do you refuse to stop? if you stop, do you refuse to answer any questions?

Of course, I can refuse to allow cops to enter my home, and they'll go away with doubt that I told them the truth.

They always say hindsight is 20/20, perhaps our lawmakers should have a closer look at what they believe to be lawful and unlawful.

BTW, it wasn't until the 1970's that Chicago cops stopped chasing and stopping blacks on the streets, it took proof of people being stopped and searched for no reasons other than that the people being stopped were just black.

Basically, that's what Russian authorities are doing, seeking out Muslims.

You have nothing to hide so you don't mind if the authorities come in. Because you don't personally see the police randomly stopping blacks, just because they're black, you don't think there is a problem?

I'm going to make an assumption, a dangerous thing I know. Because based upon your Chicago example, and your assertion that it isn't happening anymore that you see, that the problem is solved. Because of that example, I'm forced to assume that you don't have one black friend who feels close enough to confide in you the truth. Because I have several, and each of them continues to experience random police stops. When you're out driving, and you see the police have someone pulled over, take a closer look. Two cops means that the occupant of the car is black. Three cops means the occupant of the car is black, and wanted to know in less than deferential tones why he was stopped.

I don't care if the cops doubt me. My rights are non-negotiable. The rights of every citizen can not be negotiable. Next time the cops come around, and ask to search your house, tell them no. See what happens. Because there is a 50% chance that your will be arrested for resisting. The police will say you became belligerent, abusive, and even swung at them. A lie told to justify the abuse is a common tactic of the police state BTW. They might even threaten you or your family, or those other lives in your household.

Here's an example. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024141704

Another one. Serving the warrant in the wrong town. They just picked a house owned by the Simpson's. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023753286

Because you personally have never been abused, at least not that you are aware of, you believe the abuse doesn't happen. Earlier I said I admired your naiveté. I put the wrong label on it. That isn't naiveté. That is a result of you not wanting to know.

Oh, as for what I do when I come across a DUI checkpoint? I update the location on the Trapster app on my phone, giving those that would be swept up by the police, the chance to avoid the roadblock.

You're twisting my words here. I never said there was not a problem. I never said that it was okay to stop people solely because of their skin color.

How do you know I have never been personally abused? do you know me? I don't know you.

Yes, you have ASSumed quite a bit here. How do you put morons on ignore here at DU?

Profiling in the days after random shootings near VA. People driving white vans were searched, personal experience.

Before that, in the days following 9/11/01, all vans were searched in the NYC area, especially those crossing bridges, personal experiences.

Then there is the ignore tab, click on that. Then put me on full ignore. Or you can just put me on mail ignore.

Glad I could help out there man.

Oh, and if you were personally abused, I am sorry for you. However, your defense of and justifications of improper activity by the police would be hard to explain if that was the situation.

Good luck.

On if you base your definition of what constitutes a police state on what you see on tv. It's all a matter of degrees and subtlety. It's not like we haven't had similar actions. Remember protesters being cuffed, kneeling on the ground in rows, and pepper sprayed in the eyes? Stop and frisk in NYC? The papers please policies enacted in some states to curb illegal immigration? Massive domestic spying operations? These are all features of a police state where rule of law does not apply to the authorities because they are trying to "protect us".

I admit, I have had an unarmed family member beaten to death by police officers and they were not thrown into jail. Merely transferred out of the department. So the burgeoning police state has affected my family on a personal level most have not experienced. And I'm a white male who hasn't had to deal with the type of profiling many of my fellow citizens have had to deal with.

Or he wasn't as informed on the subject as he thought.

Let's see. Police State. Individuals have limited rights, and can have those rights eliminated by the decision of a few people without judicial review. NSL's from the Federal Agencies seems to fall into that category. If it doesn't, then checkpoints (like the one I went through last night on my way home) where identification must be produced, even if you call it a "safety check" would seem to qualify.

Restrictions on travel. If you go to the airport, you have to be screened by TSA agents before you can board the aircraft. That screening can include physical searches. Well, just ignore the airports and take ground transport. The TSA has set up along highways too for rolling checkpoints to fight the shadowy forces of terror. Perhaps the train, or bus. Well, they've done similar searches at bus stations and train stations. So you can't avoid the searches if you take your own car, or ride another form of transport. Oh, and if the Police believe you are smuggling anything, forget it your car will likely be disassembled before you get it back.

Ability to deprive people of their property. Civil Forfeiture. Need I explain? RICO statutes make it necessary to prove that you are innocent if Civil Forfeitures are an unknown menace to you.

Citizens are subjected to arbitrary violence from agents of the state. That means police. Do I have to give examples of that one?

Citizens are subject to surveillance by the Authorities. Really? You want me to get started on that one?

By any metric you choose, we are living in a police state. By any standard you want, we are, not will be, not could be, are.

This is probably an evil thought, but I wonder if Democrats would as a party rise up to resist it if a Republican got elected in 2016? Not that it would matter, because any Democratic candidate would also continue the practices and excuses. Merica!

(I am too, by the way, it's just that such things change your police experience. I am sure that there are people who are and are not randomly harassed by Russian police too.

That's what police do, search and harass the public, it's easier than thinking and looks a lot like "investigation".

What we have is what the Russians have: an economic class system.)

The anti-Americanism gets ridiculous sometimes. We have a better rule of law than most.

And at least there are remedies in the courts.

Many other countries don't have that.

Do you know how few police are ever held accountable for their brutalities? When they are it's a minor wrist slap at most, or an insult, like administrative time off. Translation, paid vacation. Yeah, punish me like that. That will teach me a lesson.

Just the other day here, there was a thread where the cop repeatedly inspected and probed suspects anus, despite there being a law preventing such searches without a proper warrant. His punishment, a few weeks in jail. So for repeated rapes, done under the guise of authority, he gets a few weeks in jail?

Perhaps you are right, perhaps these are the kinds of remedies we can expect more of in the future?

Also, those individuals have remedies in the courts. Geezus. If things aren't perfect, we should undo them. Then you'd be abused by cops freely. And everyone else.

just how society is going to function if no one can be trusted with executive powers.

The issue is the extent to which executive powers are abused in the United States.

You suggested that accountability through the courts was readily available. That police officer in the video I replied with, the Chief Judge of that court ruled that the cop was wrong, and his punishment was a public apology. Seriously, a public apology. The Sheriff declared that the apology would not be given, because the officer did not make public statements, only the Sheriff, or his designated spokespeople did.

So the accountability of the officer for completely violating the attorney client privilege, and theft of protected documents was an apology. An apology that wasn't given I might add.

So what recourse is left if the courts do not hold the police accountable? Cops who brutalize people are almost never fired, much less charged. One who was caught on video resigned, and was hired by the police department in the very next town. The chief of police of that town said he'd hate to ruin a mans life over one mistake. Yet, every day they arrest people and ruin their lives over that single mistake.

Accountability. The police must be subject to the same laws that they enforce, and those laws must be applied evenly. If we are going to be taking their words as the next best thing to Gospel, and if you doubt that is the case spend the day watching your local traffic court, then those officers should be put on a polygraph every six months. I'm not suggesting that if they fail the polygraph test that they go to jail, I am saying that if they fail it, and after a reasonable amount of time for a retest, people do have bad days, fail to pass the test, that they are prohibited from being cops. Not sending them to jail, but taking away their badge and gun.

But we don't hold the police accountable. We don't hold them to the most watered down standards of the laws that they enforce upon others. We never will, because fear of authority is the best tool to keep the population in line.

Police officers who lie under oath, and that lie causes an innocent man or woman to go to jail should be sent to prison for life without the possibility of parole. Police officers who brutalize people "in the line of duty" ala Rodney King, should lose their pensions, and half their pay for the rest of their lives.

http://bangordailynews.com/2012/10/20/news/state/for-police-not-wearing-seat-belts-can-be-fatal-mistake/

If a Police Officer is not wearing his seat belt and is injured or killed in a car crash no benefits should be paid to the family. Seriously, I honestly believe that. Because it was police officers who testified to the Congress, and State Legislatures that mandatory seat belt usage would save lives, and none of the cops I see are doing so. But they ticket people and give them a stern lecture on seat belt usage.

Go down the list, from major crimes to simple infractions, nobody holds the police accountable. If I left a dog in a car, in the summer, and the dog died. I would be charged with Animal Cruelty. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8941403

Why aren't the police that do that charged with animal cruelty? http://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2013

Look at those statistics. Two dogs died of heat exhaustion. Now, at the very least that would be criminal negligence wouldn't you agree? Wanna bet money on if the cops were charged with the death of the dog? Most states make it the same punishment for killing a police dog as killing a uniformed cop. Unless you're a uniformed cop that kills the police dog, they you feel bad and that's enough.

Twenty six cops died in auto accidents last year. A safe bet would be at least half of them, and almost certainly a vast majority of them, died because they were not wearing their seatbelts. Yet, full benefits are paid by the taxpayers, to the families. Who knows how many were just severely injured, and who knows how much money it cost the city/county/state to pay for the medical treatments for the "line of duty injury".

I could go on, and on, and on. I could literally stay here and type all night giving you example after example of the double standard that exists. Before you can lead on an issue, you must first live by that standard. We chastise Repukes every day, rightly so, for their hypocrisy. But we never chastise the police nor the "courts" you are so fond of, for the same hypocrisy. When we hold the cops to at least the same standards and punish them for the same violations that everyone else is punished for, and held accountable for, then I'll have a little respect for the criminal justice system. Until then, it's just a criminal system.

It's now.

totalitarian regime.

There can be more than one police state.

... "stop and frisk" sound even vaguely familiar to you?

Ever hear of the NSA?



Here's your sign:

FAIL

Stop and frisk in NYC? The NSA spying on our cell phones and online activity?



Epic fail.

The 4th Amendment which has been rendered null and void by the drug war over the past 3 decades.

Sorry, but "at least we're not Russia" is hardly a standard by which I wish to uphold Constitutional values.

usually means very little, unless the police in the USA use proper procedures, yes, our 4th. has been violated countless times, I will agree. Russia doesn't really have a 4th. do they?

Never wonder why a person stopped for a DWI or DUI had their car searched illegally because a cop simply said, can you step out of the car for a minute, and then spots a empty beer can on the floorboard of the driver's car.

If a bomb goes off, they look for more bombs by stopping people dressed in tight blue jeans and t shirts.

Now if they would have been stopping men with beards carrying backpacks or something similar, that would be racial profiling, so to be PC, they stopped everybody. Pootin Tootin is going to do some ethnic cleansing I'm sure. He will be sorry.

The idea that somehow holding the US to the standard of "at least we're not Russia" might one day be floated as a serious, legitimate legal argument around Constitutional Rights... it's funny.

the problems with the 4th..

I've read some really good posts here. Someone said something of the roadblocks used to stop traffic and question people.

We can all stay in the comfort of our living rooms, and wait for the PD to come knocking on our doors, and when we answer, we can say, I know my rights, get a warrant if you want to look inside.
Same with your car, get a warrant if you want to search.

So, we will deny and hamper police action all the while, and then when another incident happens, we'll say well, why didn't the police do more?

Somehow, the video clip I watched on TV a few days ago reminded me of movies I'd seen where foreign army personnel stopped people from going and coming as they pleased. The latest bombing in Russia was said to be a homicide bomber, usually, homicide bombers don't walk streets after they killed themselves along with other people, which raises the question, what were Russian authorities looking for? Or, were they just sending a message to unknown people that we're looking for you?

To stop people, put them up against a wall, and search for what? at gunpoint. What could a Russian possibly be looking for knowing the homicide bomber already killed himself? Not even American police or authorities are that stupid.

Russia is quite bad, and their authoritarian government is certainly worth criticizing...BUT

America is not without fail. Our authorities frequently overlook our Constitutional rights, especially our 4th Amendment protections. Minorities have a particularly hard time of it, with plenty of major cities' police forces having officially unofficial policies of racial profiling to subject young black men to specifically less fair treatment.

The US has always had it's faults. The entire 8 years of W.'s reign comes to mind.

When people compare the US to Russia, China or North Korea (and yes I have seen people make such a ridiculous argument), it makes me really wonder if they know how to use logic.

I've lived in both China and South Korea. Most people on this board have no idea what it is like to live in a foreign country. Only then can you really compare the US. South Korea for instance has slightly less freedom of speech then the US (there isn't a huge difference though, but libel and slander are taken very seriously). China you have to really be careful what you say and who you say it to. The internet, forget about it. Yeah you can get a VPN, but the government still fucks with you by blocking IPs. North Korea, from what I've heard from refugees is so repressive you'd wish you were dead.

So when people make these comparisons it only proves how moronic they are.

is America has never applied the US Constitution-Declaration of Independence, because if it had, we would never have had a need for the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1875, 1964, it would never have been necessary in the first place if America enforced the Constitution / Declaration. Under the Declaration of Independence, all men to me would mean ALL, NOT JUST CERTAIN PEOPLE.

American doctrine is hypocritical at the very least.

In the Russian Constitution, Article 2 is laughable,
snippet
Article 2.

Man, his rights and freedoms shall be the supreme value. It shall be a duty of the state to recognize, respect and protect the rights and liberties of man and citizen.
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/ch1.html

Almost about as funny as the US Constitution is when it comes to respecting people's rights.
The Declaration of Independence
snippet
Declaration of Independence
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the
political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the
earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle
them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes
which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed,—

So which government is the worst at protecting the rights of it's citizens? America? or Russia?

I say Russia presently is worse because of their anti-gay stance. I say Russia for lining people up against walls after stopping their own citizens for no apparent reasoning. Homicide bombers usually don't go home, if that's what they claimed to be stopping and searching people for.

of Stalin were not as bad as the McCarthy era - if that's the standard - Mussolini was a liberal compared to Hitler and Marcos was nothing compared to Pol Pot for that matter

Look the Russians never pretend that they are a democracy. On the other hand the US constitution has clearly stated guarantees of freedom and privacy. What's more the same people in America who support mashing up the 1st and 4th amendments love to scream about their freedoms.

I don't give a flying fuck about Russia - America - that's a different story.

I will grant that Russia is more of a Police State than that US. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd say Russia falls in at about a 6 or 7. While here in the US, we are closer to a 3 or 4.

For crappy analogies, I have crappy comparisons... Would you eat a bowl of Frosted Flakes with 7 ounces of cat shit in it? Now would you eat a bowl if there were only 4 ounces of cat shit in it? Preferably, I'd rather not have any cat shit in my Frosted Flakes. Would you consider a boyfriend that beats up his girlfriend 3 times a day to be a good person because he does not beat her up 6 times a day like that guy across the street?