• Home
  • Posts Tagged'supreme court'

Posts Tagged ‘supreme court’

Are Drug Dogs Unreliable? Yes!

“Are Drug Dogs Unreliable? Yes!” by John F Hays, a Seattle Private Investigator.

The Washington Post just published an article that says that the science on the subject indicates “that drug dogs have disturbingly high rates of ‘false alerts’, sometimes with error rates well above 50 percent”. The article indicates that drug dogs can be deliberately or inadvertently influenced by their handlers. If this is true, the validity of evidence developed from the use of these dogs is questionable, at best. This should be the subject of a lot of discussion in the criminal justice system, especially in the criminal defense sector.

Check these links and others (in the article) collected by Radley Balco, the author of the above noted Washington Post article.

“The Mind of a Police Dog”

“NHP Troopers Sue…”

“Police Dog Named “Bono”…”

“Illinois State Police Drug Dogs…”

Tribune analysis: Drug-sniffing dogs…

“Handler beliefs affect…”

 

 

Supreme Court Proves Incompetence Again

“Supreme Court Proves Incompetence Again” by John F Hays, a Seattle Private Investigator.

It’s really disturbing to me to see once again that the “constitutional experts” on the Supreme Court are so ignorant of the concept of human or natural rights. Their decision last summer in the case of Salinas vs Texas, docket number 12-246, shows that they think our rights are given to us by the government.

The Bill of Rights is a statement of HUMAN RIGHTS, not a statement of privileges that can be granted or taken away by a bunch of arrogant political hacks hiding behind their black robes. Are they really that ignorant or are they deliberately subverting the Constitution for the political agenda of their corporate owners?

A post on the blog, Political Irony, pretty much sums things up.

 

Supreme Court Flunks Test On Privacy Rights

“Supreme Court Flunks Test on Privacy Rights” by John F. Hays, a Seattle Private Investigator.

Privacy rights were on trial; and The Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 decision that police don’t need a search warrant to take your DNA by use of a mouth swab. What’s next? Fecal and urine samples? Blood draws? Sperm samples? If they get away with that, they can expand the program to requiring the same sampling for people getting driver’s licenses and registering to vote. Think about how many criminals they could find if they did house-to-house searches. Think about how safe that would make you feel.

 

Is Self-Defense a Social Evil?

“Is Self-Defense a Social Evil?” by John F Hays, a Seattle Private Investigator

The issue

Is self-defense an anachronism and a social evil?

Do you believe you have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as stated in the Declaration of Independence? Who is responsible for insuring that right? At the societal level, it’s the government aided by the community. At an individual and family level, it’s the individual, the family and community, aided or not by the government.

I’ve heard people claim that personal security is the job of the police and that self defense is an anachronism in our modern country, especially when the means of self defense is a gun. This claim is often made by otherwise intelligent people who are too frightened to see the truth and who are afraid to recognize their own responsibility. Recognizing and acting on this responsibility requires people to do the work to prepare to protect themselves and their families and it requires them to suppress their fear of getting their hands dirty. It’s odd that these same people are OK with hiring mercenaries to do their dirty work for them. Is this the self-righteous piety of the pseudo-pacifist? Is it fear? Is it cowardice? Is it self-delusion? Is it some combination of these factors or something else entirely.

The truth

The police are not responsible for your individual security. Rational/logical argument: it’s the math. Legal argument: it’s the law.

The math argument only requires that you determine two numbers, the number of police officers in your community and the population of your community. The ratio of the first number to the second gives you a small fraction, doesn’t it?

The legal argument is that the courts have ruled on a number of occasions that the police aren’t responsible for your personal security. Just read the following references.

A 2005 Supreme Court decision: http://nyti.ms/V9cUKG

An example: Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: ” Courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community. . . .”

A good general discussion: http://bit.ly/V9dDvl

The question

It’s obvious that you have both the right and the responsibility for your own self defense and that of your family. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

 

Guns, Violence and Society – The Issue

Guns, Violence and Society by John F. Hays, a Seattle Private Investigator.

For me, the Tucson shooting illustrates the topic of guns, violence and society better than any other incident in modern history. It has gotten me fired up to dive into this most contentious subject. I guess I’m a glutton for punishment. While the gun control issue was certain to arise again, as it does after every high-profile shooting incident, I find it particularly interesting how long it took for the anti-gun faction to get into gear. Of course that meant that it took correspondingly long for the pro-gun faction to react to their opponents. I suspect the pros were holding their collective breath wondering what the antis were up to while the antis were trying to prepare a response that wouldn’t disrespect the victims but would make some kind of sense in the aftermath of the recent Supreme Court findings on the Second Amendment.

District of Columbia, et al. v. Heller

McDonald, et al. v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al.

Over the next several posts, I want to try to dissect the gun control issue in a way that supports a rational discussion by otherwise reasonable people who hold a range of opinions that exist along a spectrum from totally banning firearms to removing all government imposed controls. I will not define my position at this point because I don’t want to be dismissed by those readers who might react with strong emotions to my observations and analysis. Accept or reject my ideas as you will; but, give me the benefit of the doubt until you have heard me out.

Come along for the ride. I welcome disagreement; but think first; and then comment if you wish to contribute. Of course, I have the right to terminate the involvement of anyone whose comments are rude, uncivil, or obviously deranged.

 
© 2012 HSI Investigations, A Seattle Private Investigator