Gonzalez Family's 4th Amendment Rights

Great Debates
41

The only vaguely unreasonable thing is that it was not done sooner. Otherwise, they got back a little kid who had been taken hostage, and nobody got hurt in the process, which sounds like the best outcome you could realistically hope for at this point. (And the agent is clearly not pointing his gun at the kid, BTW).

If anybody ever kidnapped a child of mine, damned straight I’d want the authorities to go bust down their door and get him back, even at the cost of the kidnappers lives, if necessary. The constitution protects law abiding citizens, but you give up those protections when you kidnap someone’s child.

–
peas on earth

42

That’s my point, it was unreasonable.

Get real, 5 AM may not be the “middle” of the night, but it’s still obnoxious.

Doesn’t anyone care about our rights anymore? The Founding Fathers were against this sort of governtmenal abuse.

43

I care about our Constitutional rights. Passionately. Unfortunately, in this case you are just wrong, and jodih is right. If you have ever seen my posts on politics here you would know that the inalienable rights of Americans are near and dear to me. Stateing over and over again that the S&S was unreasonable does not make it so. Most of us gave that up as a debating tatic about the time we relized that covering our eyes dosen’t make a bad thing go away.

Cecil said it. I believe it. That settles it.

Relax, I’m not as Dave as I look!- A Wallified sig!

44

Ok folks. First Elian was not "kidnapped’. Elian had been placed with those relative, legally, and now the same dept that placed him there changed their mind. If Elian had been “kidnapped” you would have seen FBI agents ther, and the “kidnappers” being led away in handcuffs. Did you see that? Did Reno even MENTION the word “kidnapped”. No, and she knows the law pretty damn good, and if she thought that there was even the tiniest chance of a Federal court not laffing her out of their courtroom, with a huge judgement for violating the arrestees rights, she would have arrested them. Since you did not see that or hear that word being uttered by any Federal authority, you can forget about the “kidnapping”. THERE WAS NONE.

Calling the Miami relatives “kidnappers” is as bad as calling Reno a “nazi”(ETC). Didn’t you folks slam people for the incorrect & hastyuse of those terms? Aren’t you just as wrong for using “kidnapper”?

Now, Reno was, I believe wrong in using force to solve this problem, and as usual, if you defy her, she counterattacks w/ force WAY out of proportion to the problem. Elian was in no danger, until a Federal Agent pointed a loaded submachinegun at him. Unless you folks think that’s not dangerous. Hell, I have HAD loaded guns pointed at me, and I can assure you, that just about DEFINES the word “dangerous”. Try it sometime, it’s something that we all should experience once. If you haven’t had a gun pointed at your head, 2 feet away, then you really don’t know what the hell your talking about comparing the potential “psycological” danger to Elian, compared to the REAL danger of looking down a gun barrel.

Yes, the Miami relatives were wrong in retaining Elian after the Circuit Court released juristiction, and then Reno could order them to return the kid. However, this did not justify the attack.

What else could she have done? Well, she could have asked a Federal Court to issue an order. But she didn’t. The reason why, is that she was on somewhat shakey legal ground (the Miami rlatives attorney had been filing motions & such), and if the Court had turned her down, she would be SOL. Maybe, if a Court had ordered the return, and they defied the court, the $10,000/day contempt of court fine might have brought a peaceful end.

Reno overreacted, and went for the violent approach, as usual.

I am sure we will see the Lawsuit, claiming the civil right/4th admen etc, and sueing the Justice dept for millions. I’ll be interested in the verdict, but I’ll be a quarter right now, that Reno settles.

45

The Justice Department had spent more than enough time asking politely for the Miami relatives to give up Elian.

I think Reno learned a lot from the mistakes of Mount Carmel (a friend of mine from Waco makes it a point to tell me to refer to that incident that way). There was no bloodshed.

Yes, it was scary. So was Elian’s mother putting him on a raft adrift in the Atlantic Ocean.

46

But he was, from the time that the family refused to hand him over to his father, in violation of an order to do so. Both legally and morally, the father is the prime custodian here, and has every right to be with his son. Once they made it clear they would not return Elian to his father, they were kidnappers.

The Justice Dept made repeated offers made to make the transfer to the father peacefully, but the family made it clear they would not comply. From this point forwards, force was a valid solution, and they used just enough to get Elian back without anyone getting seriously hurt. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with this, and if it had been my child, I would have wanted them to act exactly as they did here.

–
peas on earth

47

jodih, a rousing “Amen!” to your post above concerning the behavior of Cuban residents of Miami.

I wish that those people, and the “Keep Elian Here!” crowd, could get HALF as worked up about the fact that we still have Cuba under a trade embargo. Even though we sold grain to the Soviets throughout the Cold War, even though we continue to trade and open up new markets with China (the biggest abuser of human rights in the world), we keep Cuba under embargo. Why? To bring Castro to his knees, of course! Don’t you all see him suffering? Forget the hundreds of thousands of poor Cubans made destitute by our actions–We’re Fighting Communism!

Much like the odd segment of the pro-life crowd that only cares about taking care of unborn children but tells them they’re on their own once their born, these folks only care about helping unfortunate Cuban children if they can make it on dangerous raft rides to Florida.

Humans are really, really dumb, aren’t they?

48

Number 1: It wouldn’t have happened at my house because I respect both the rule of law and the father’s presumed right to raise his child absent any proof of abuse.

Number 2: The weapons weren’t pointed at the child, at least not according to the newscasts this morning.

49

Also, stating it “over and over again” does not make it NOT so. I’m still waiting for someone to explain how this was a reasonable S&S.

50

You wouldn’t be referring to the very same door that the relatives in Miami said they’d leave unlocked 24 hours a day, now would you?

51

Bantmof: Did Reno arrest ANYONE for kidnapping? Do you really believe that if Reno had ANY case at all for a Kidnapping charge she would not have the arrest made? Do you believe that you know more about Federal Law than Reno (or even me, who was on the Grand Jury)?

NO, NO, & NO (or at least I hope not). Thus no “kidnapping”.

52

Monty, as for point #2, here’s the picture at
http://www.ap.org/

53

No, but I think she should have, and a failure to arrest them does not mean they are not. Only because it has turned into a big media circus were they treated in good faith for so long.

I stand by what I said: there is no legal or moral ambiguity here - the father has custody rights, not some great-uncle. I see no basis for viewing it any other way.

–
peas on earth

54

Banthof: apparently you are not aware of the Legal system here in the US. “Innocent until proven guilty”.

Next, Reno was willing to shoot them all down like dogs, if it came to that. Two other words; “WACO” “Weaver”. My god, either you are her greatest fan, or naive beyond belief.

But I am sure Reno would love to get legal advice from you, on how to run the Justice dept. Do you have any legal experience at all? I have at least served on a Grand Jury, and I know what evidence you need to get an indictment. Reno would not have gotten one from me (for kidnapping, that is, there are a few minor Federal laws that could be applied , like hindering a Federal Officer).

Hey, I am not saying they were RIGHT for keeping Elian, but it ain’t kidnapping. Be more careful with your namecalling in the future.

55

Well, I’m not a lawyer, so I admit I may be mistaken about legal issues. But if you are holding someone’s child against the parent’s will, and there is enough cause to believe you do not have legal custody, I really do not believe you get to hold the child until a trial to determine your innocent has finished. At least, I have never heard of that happening.

Try keeping keeping your next door neighbor’s kid for weeks against the parents’ wishes, and refusing to comply with the authorities who tell you to give him back. I’m fairly sure the cops will use whatever force is necessary to return the kid to his parents before you get a trial.

I’m not sure what my personal opinion of Reno has to do with this situation, but just so you know, I don’t really like her very much and I think a number of things have happened under her watch that appear to have involved serious abuses. However, this is not one of them. She acted in an entirely appropriate manner here, both morally and (as far as I know) legally. She even went to great lengths to resolve the situation peacefully, but the family in FL would not allow that to happen.

–
peas on earth

56

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “reasonable” as “fair, proper, just, moderate, suitable under the circumstances.”

Black’s Law Dictionary states in relevant part “a person is guilty of kidnapping…if he unlawfully confines another for a substantial period in a place of isolation…to interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function.”

Florida statute 787.01  Kidnapping; kidnapping of child under age 13, aggravating circumstances.–
(1)(a)  The term “kidnapping” means forcibly, secretly, or by threat confining, abducting, or imprisoning another person against her or his will and without lawful authority, with intent to:
1.  Hold for ransom or reward or as a shield or hostage.
2.  Commit or facilitate commission of any felony.
3.  Inflict bodily harm upon or to terrorize the victim or another person.
4.  Interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function.
(b)  Confinement of a child under the age of 13 is against her or his will within the meaning of this subsection if such confinement is without the consent of her or his parent or legal guardian.
(2)  A person who kidnaps a person is guilty of a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

So while I am not sitting on a Florida jury, and while all people are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, all of this taken together leads me to believe that, in a hypothetical situation in which all facts are identical to those in the Elian case, the Elianistas are guilty of kidnapping and the actions taken by the agents in retrieving Elian were reasonable.

All of the bluster in this thread about Waco, Ruby Ridge or any other action ever taken by Janet Reno is irrelevant to the question of whether the agents in this case acted within the bounds of the Constitution. That a gun may or may not have been pointed at a child is irrelevant to a discussion of whether this action fits the legal defenition of “reasonable.”

57

In light of the blatant thread hijacking by Califboomer and the mentioning of the Waco incidence, I just wanted to present this little piece of news I saw on CNN today…

Report: Federal agents didn’t fire at Branch Davidians

This report, by the way, is referring to those flashes of light (alleged gun shots) that infrared cameras had recorded. Now back to your normal programming…

58

OttO; “forcibly, secretly or by threat”. Nope. Still, Do you believe you know more about the Law than Reno? Do you believe that if Reno thought they were guilty of kidnapping she would not have arrested them?
These folks REALLY piised her off, and I am sure she would have used any legal means to get back at them. Or do you think Reno does not care about “kidnapping” and is willing to “let it go”, especially if it is so obvious that people who have no legal experience what-so-ever are willing to condemn them.

All of those still believing in “kidnapping”: explain, please, Renos lack of arresting for that crime.

If every time a once-but-no-longer-custodial parent kept a kid after they were supposed to give them up to the other, was convicted of kidnapping, the federal prisons would be full. Now, TAKING a kid, secretly, or by force, even if one was once the custodial parent, CAN be, but rarely is, considered kidnapping.

How long have YOU sat on a Grand Jury?

59

I clearly see a gun pointed past the adult on the opposite side of the adult from the child. The man holding the weapon clearly does not have his finger on the trigger.

Since this information is quite clear in the picture, constant references to “pointing guns at” the boy appear to be nothing more than hysterical rabble-rousing. You have made the claim on multiple occasions. You have been corrected on each occasion. You continue to repeat the falsehood.

I can only conclude that your intentions are to incite hysteria in defiance of common sense and with no regard to the truth–despite the fact that you have provided the evidence that denies your claim.

Tom~

60

Danielinthewolvesden writes:

At this point I can only believe that you are being willfully ignorant. The word “or” is used to separate several possibilities, so only one must be true for the clause to be true. Note it doesn’t say “and”; it says “or”. The child IS being kept “against his will and without lawful authority”, as clarified in 1(b) which states, “Confinement of a child under the age of 13 is against her or his will within the meaning of this subsection if such confinement is without the consent of her or his parent or legal guardian.”

In this case you know very well that this child was being held without the consent of the parent, so this definition of kidnapping applies.

You also knew very well several posts above that if you kidnap a child, the child can be removed from your custody by the authorities before you get to prove your innocence in a trial. You’re treading dangerously close to troll-status here, Daniel.

–
peas on earth