What part of that video looked like an unconstitutional search to you?Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
What part of that video looked like an unconstitutional search to you?
It's amazing how consistent your stupidity is.
So your argument goes from "only 1 house was searched and they called the police" to " all those other searches were constitutional"
You've clearly been proven wrong, the only place you're right is in the reality constructed in your own mind. You're not smart kid.... the more you pretend to be, the more obvious it is that you're a moron. You're a narcissist with a highly inflated evaluation of your own intelligence. Burying your post in self righteousness wont hide it.
Someone please back him up. I'm an idiot apparently and something unconstitutional is going on in these videos that NO ATTORNEY IN THE COUNTRY has discovered.
Anyone.
Again, you lack reading comprehension. Not once have i said this wasnt "exigent circumstance"..... i actually said the opposite.... that EVERYTHING could fall under exigent circumstance. Legality doesnt make it right. This is a misuse of the letter of the law.
Again.... come back to reality kid. Take your time, slow down... read things twice if you need to.
I'm a cop, i'm chasing a bank robber. My car runs out of gas. The fugitive says "so long copper.... i'm going to mexico". I lock down every road and house on the way to mexico and send out police to start searching homes for the fugitive.
Exigent circumstance, by the letter of the law. Also an exaggerated example of exactly what happened in Boston.
The point is, the vagueness of this law can be exploited. Legality =/= right. What happened in Boston was not right.
My work here is done. Blank, you're a moron. Quit trying so hard.
Name one thing that was unconstitutional that happened in any of those videos. One thing and you'll prove me wrong.
My argument went from "only 1 house was entered without a warrant" to "only one house was entered without a warrant."
What do you believe is not right? That they can come into your house without permission when a fugitive is in it? Or that they can go door to door and ask to search any house they want?
Your example does not fall under exigent circumstance.
Are you saying that cops going from house to house and searching homes of people who give consent is not right?
While I agree that legality is not the same as ethical or moral, I have to agree with blank in regards to your proposed scenario. There is not a judge in the country who would rule that to fall under exigent circumstances. There would be a lot of successful lawsuits against the police in that scenario.
It's an exaggerated example of exactly what happened in boston......
I understand your point was that vagueness in laws can be exploited. Certainly this is true but it is also anticipated. This is one of the primary purposes of the judiciary branch; to interpret and apply laws. So while the police can theoretically claim whatever outrageous interpretation they want, as in your exaggerated scenario, they will ultimately be checked by the judiciary. There is nothing about the Boston event that leads me to believe that our system of checks and balances have failed in this regard.
How many times did the checks and balances say no to wire tapping?
No. Not even remotely close
Ok, I think that we need to understand the Fourth Amendment in regards to reality in a situation like Watertown's searches.
The Fourth Amendment is there to protect the citizens from being unfairly prosecuted by the government for an illegal search/seizure. It does not physically prevent the officers from entering your premises/property if they decide to.
In the case of Watertown, the vast majority of citizen's knew who the officers were looking for, and gave their consent to search. In their cases, if the officers found anything illegal, they could legally arrest and charge them with a crime, and seize anything that they found, and the court would uphold it.
If they did not give consent, that did not mean that the officers could not enter their houses. The officers had to choose to balance out what was more important, and they clearly considered an armed and dangerous terrorist to be of more concern than a little pot or an illegal gun. In their cases, the officers could still enter and search, and even seize anything they found; however, by not giving consent to a search, their lawyers could get any evidence that was seized dropped in court. This is how our system is designed to work. You should never give consent to a search, but you cannot physically prevent the officer from entering and searching without "obstructing an officer" - which is another charge.
So....Anarchy?
You spelled America wrong.
Pretty sure I spelled Anarchy right
Shouldn't use words you don't understand the meaning of.
And yet you still say words like 'government', 'liberal', and 'democrat'. Interesting.
I understand completely. Maybe one day you will take your blinders off.
Ronald Reagan - " Man is not free unless government is limited." Liberal - "ANARCHY!!!!"
LOL. If you only understood how "liberal" Ronald Reagan was. It would blow your feeble little mind
“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
"Some of you may remember that in my early days, I was sort of a bleeding heart liberal. Then I became a man and put away childish ways."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote