Look, I know you think you're hot shit, but that was old news before you even signed up here.

Again, context clues make it overwhelmingly clear. One person's a forensic psychiatrist, one person is a relationship therapist. One of my criticisms refers to a relationship therapist, one doesn't. I'm not going to hold your hand, change your diapers or make the spoonful of oatmeal go choo-choo-choo into your mouth. You're a big boy, figure it out from there.

An what objection did you have to that post besides your entirely vague and ambiguous one? What counter evidence did you offer besides your own biased, unreliable opinion?

"The population of convicted felons on parole is larger and we give police the right to search their premises without warning or warrant."

No, we do not. You are incorrect. If you can show me a statute in even three states that allow that, I would be surprised.

PE, I did not post to you. You posted to me. The fact that I exposed you as being completely full of shit and not knowing what the fuck you were talking about left you in a indefensible position on the matter. Go look in the mirror for the person to blame. It isn't my fault you fucked up.

@Emac - I never said they don't lose rights. No one here has. But you are incorrect when you say they lose the most basic of rights involving warrantless searches and seizures. They do not. You are simply wrong. All myw eb research has show that no single state in the US allows a warrantless search of *anyone's* home wihtout imminent cause (i.e. hear a gunshor or screaming or believe that a crime is in progress).

Yes we do give police the right to search the residence of convicted felons on parole without warning or warrant. "Typically, the released convict agrees to submit his person, property, and residence to warrantless, suspicionless search and seizure by any correctional or law enforcement officer for the duration of the probationary or parole term." http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2006/09/point-of-law.aspx

Draugnar, in fact it is you who are absolutely incorrect as my last post proves. I'm sorry that you insist on posting fabrications that are easily refuted.

Putin, you asked for links I provided them.
PE, you completely mischaracterized my exchange with Putin about the Holodomor and I exposed this.
I did not post first to either one of you, but I responded to your unsubstantiated bullshit.

"the released convict agrees to submit his person, property, and residence to warrantless"

Not this says they agree to it. It is no different than the police coming to your door and asking if they can come in. You can agree to it. But they do not have this right carte blanche.

From your link...

Re: Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott (SCOTUS case)

"the court held that even if the search were assumed to be unreasonable, the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should have no application at a revocation proceeding: "

So, had it been a criminal search, it would have been unconstitutional and only worked in this instance because it was a parole revocation hearing. In short, that evidence doesn't apply in criminal proceedings. Had they found, say, a dead woman's body that was still warm, they could not have charged him with murder or

Re: U.S. v. Knights

"the court held that where, as here, there was in fact a reasonable suspicion, a warrantless probation search was not constitutionally unreasonable. "

Required reasonable suspicion. Searching someone's home just cause they are a paranoid schizophrenic is not a rerasonable suspicion of them committing a crime.

Your own link keep supporting what I am saying in *every* instance so far. Warrantless searches without cause are still unconstitutional for criminal evidence. Period.

Griffin v. Wisconsin

Another case where it was about a parole revocation eharing, not a criminal trial.

Samson v. California

"where a parolee accepts a term of warrantless, suspicionless search as a condition of early release from prison, he has temporarily forfeited the right to require a search warrant or some level of objective suspicion for police searches and seizures."

So only here was it used for criminal charges and the court said it is only because the parolee agrees to the condition as part of his early release. What agreement are you getting from the paranoid schizophrenic? None! They aren't agreeing to this. You are just taking it and that violates the 4th amendment.

Emac: "Steephie, if you were paranoid schizo you would think the police were already searching your home when they aren't."

A brain has only tons of processing power, therefore it can't think everything at once. Some things are simply more likely than other things, that counts for everyone, no matter how sane or insane you consider them. Now when the government passes laws allowing them to search the homes of innocent paranoid schizophrenics, the innocent paranoid schizophrenics will much more likely think of cops breaking into their houses, or planning to do so. Either way, the best plan for fighting back is arguably striking at the enemy's heart.

It's not like those people go around the world guns blazing all the time because there might be an invisible man in front of them, trying to kill them. Just saying, because I'm not sure you knew this.

And as Draugnar is pointing out, doing what is suggested would be like throwing a schizophrenic into prison for nothing but letting him out on parole. But he did nothing. An overthrow of the government is the only sane next step when this happens.

Steephie, your hyperbole is ineffective. The warrantless search of a residence is not putting someone in prison, but I appreciate that you've run out of logical refutations because you resorted to such nonsense.

This coming from you? Lol

As a general rule, your home can be searched without a search warrant while on parole or probation. The search can include your home, car, and person. The search must be conducted, however, by the appropriate state agency.
http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/parole_probation/parole_search_warrant.htm
The text of Samson v California decided by the Supreme Court in 2006 clearly gives law enforcement the right to search without a warrant and dismisses the need for suspicion because the individual is already suspected because of their status as a convicted felon. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-9728.ZS.html

I'm sorry you still feel embarrassed PE, but you have only yourself to blame.

You're like the second coming of Tettleton's Chew

Draugnar, I guess you don't understand what parole is. A convict is offered the opportunity to live outside the physical custody of the state, but is still in the custody of the state and not a free citizen. They sign a document voluntarily abridging their own 4th amendment rights and Samson v. California explicitly recognized this. So a parolee in California can be physically searched at any time by the proper law enforcement. They can also be compelled to supply bodily fluids on demand, i.e. drug tests. Their domiciles can be searched without warrant was well by the proper authorities.

In fact we should not only search the residence of paranoid schizo's to uncover any plans of mass slaughter we should also require them to submit to drug tests to make sure they take their meds exactly in the way we monitor convicted felons on parole.

PE, continued attempts to try to save face by trolling. You remind me of Putin when he is denying he Holodomor.

Wow, reading comprehension wasn't all our good friend borrowed from the entomologist. Looks like he got an insect's self-awareness, too.

"In fact we should not only search the residence of paranoid schizo's to uncover any plans of mass slaughter we should also require them to submit to drug tests to make sure they take their meds exactly in the way we monitor convicted felons on parole. "

You logic fails because the paranoid schizo hasn't committed any crime! You are violating his 4th amendment rights without him ever having been put under trial or signing an agreement.

A parolee had a trial, was convicted, and agreed to the terms of his aprole for an early release. He has a choice of staying n prison for the fullt erm and coming out without that search and siezure waiver. The PS sufferer does not. *That* is the difference and I thank God you aren't in charge of that. If my state started doing that, I would lead an armed revolt against Columbus (Ohio's capital).

It's kind of disappointing to see some of the young people speaking as though the mentally disturbed don't or shouldn't have rights.

How true, Al. How true...

To paraphrase pastor Martin Niemöller...

First they came for the paranoid schizophrenics and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a paprnoid scizophrenic.

Then they came for all schizophrenics and I didn't speak out because I wasn't any type of schizophrenic.

Then they came for all people with serious mental illnesses and I didn't speak out because I didn't have a serious mental illness.

Then they came for those who were severely depressed and I didn't speak out because I wasn't severely depressed.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.

"Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me."

But there are probably plenty of voices to speak to.

LOL! Thanks for levity

It's shocking to see seemingly intelligent people make the irrational and illogical generalization of the tragically violent subset of paranoid schizophrenics into the entire population of the mentally ill. It's a commentary on the power of hollow rhetoric being given precedence over simple rational thought. What prompts such irrationality and self-delusion is truly inexplicable.

It's shocking to see seemingly in... no, never mind, I'd be lying.