Are you saying that cops going from house to house and searching homes of people who give consent is not right?
Are you saying that cops going from house to house and searching homes of people who give consent is not right?
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
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.
All I know is what was on the police scanner. Both were simply out walking when they stopped for the cops.
It's an exaggerated example of exactly what happened in boston......
No. Not even remotely close
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?
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.
I am going to assume that you are referring to the FISA courts oversight of the Patriot Act and the ones related specifically to it, and not any traditional non-FISA wire tapping warrants that happen to be requested every day. If so, six, that we are aware of.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
David already answered the question. Even if you believe the checks and balances failed in one particular case, are you implying that the general principle of checks in balances is invalid? What do you propose instead?
Only works if we hold government accountable, something we no longer do. The government rules over us and answers to nobody. 536 people decide how millions should live their life.
Again I ask, what do you propose be done about it? Also, if we don't like how government is performing, why do we keep electing the same people over and over?
Same reason sheep follow the shepherd or cows walk into the slaughter house.
Maybe the third try is the lucky number...
What do you propose we do about it?
Support any and every measure to reduce government and increase freedom. Oppose any and every measure that increases government or reduces freedom.
Accept personal responsibility and quit calling on the machine for assistance or failure protection.
So....Anarchy?
You spelled America wrong.
Pretty sure I spelled Anarchy right
Shouldn't use words you don't understand the meaning of.
Because the American voting public is ignorant. That ignorance is caused by profound laziness and stupidity. Politicians of both sides fear an intelligent voter more than anything else.
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."
Right but that is how our constitution is set up. Everyone gets to vote no matter how ignorant, lazy, or stupid they are. That's why I asked what is the proposed alternative that is better? Certainly a benevolent dictator could be much better but it could also be much worse because dictators don't have track record of being benevolent. Sinflix seems to advocate anarchy or at least something much closer to it. I see that as creating as many problems as it solves. Personally, I think we should be dumping way more effort into education. That could at least help with the ignorant part.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote