At least 2 were 'detained' while I was listening to the Boston and Watertown police scanners.Originally Posted by bu villain
At least 2 were 'detained' while I was listening to the Boston and Watertown police scanners.
Do you have any more details on why they were detained and what the particular circumstances were? I can't judge how reasonable it was without knowing more.
Did you watch the video??? refusing was not an option....everyone was *FORCED* to comply....
No it isnt... are you retarded?
I'm not retarded. I guess the maker of the specific law was retarded. Blame him for being so specific and making you wrong yet again. I don't make the laws, I just find out what they were, post them on here, and make you look like an imbecile with extreme consistency.
The video is of ONE single house. How is that everyone?
yep, you're retarded. Thanx for the confirmation.
Sinfix, why is it that the things you post, and your feelings are always the opposite of what actually happen?
An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a search warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect will escape.
Give me a scenario where you could NOT apply this to ANY instance where a fugitive was being pursued?
You're delusional, something ive been aware of long before this thread.
Did you read at all what you just posted?
The irony of blank ideology is down right hilarious to me..........
No matter how wrong something the government does, he looks to the letter of the law to defend them.
The letter of the law would have once allowed me to actually own him.
oh the irony.....
Are you really this simple?
If an armed fugitive is running down the street and cops are in pursuit and the fugitive trips on his shoelace and falls flat on his face, the cops CANNOT enter the home down the street with a no knock warrant.
If the armed fugitive is running down the street and cops are in pursuit and the fugitive breaks into your home, the cops CAN and WILL enter your home to arrest him without your consent.
What part about that is difficult to understand?
Do you believe that if the fugitive breaks in your home and closes the door behind him, and the cops are pursuing him, that they should ask your permission and wait for your approval before entering?
I understand the law, it's your lack of reading comprehension and falsely advertised intelligence that is getting in the way of you understanding the point.
Is anyone else in this thread having difficulty understanding the concept of exigent circumstances within the warrant clause?
Does anyone else think cops should ask permission and wait for approval when pursuing an armed suspect into your home?
Or is Sinfix alone in this?
What is your point? You haven't made one other than the fact that you disagree that cops should be able to come into your home while pursuing an armed suspect to your front door. And it seems like only you share in this belief.
Am I spot on here?
They didnt pursue the suspect until he entered a home........... they locked down the entire city and went searching for the suspect.
based on the letter of the law, you could apply exigent circumstances to ANY fugitive on the loose.
will you come with me one day on a trip? i want you and i to take a ride to the NAACP and tell them that everything done to black people was legal. I want to ask them all the shut up. Owning slaves was perfectly legal and right.... they need to quit slandering the good name of slave owners who were doing nothing more than following the law. Because if the letter of the law is worded in such a way that it allows you to do something, then so be it. Legality > morality.
The home you saw in the video was the home of the person who called the police and said the fugitive was on his property. Exigent circumstance applies. There's no argument about it.
Why would you need me there while you humiliate yourself?
What does state sanctioned racism and slavery have to do with the protection of evidence and the occupants?
they went door to door searching............................. it wasnt 1 house.... it was every house..... until they found him.
Exactly...... it was state sanctioned. That is the point. It doesnt matter if it was right or wrong, only that it was legal. Legality is the end all. If you can manipulate a law in such a way that it allows you to do something, more power to you. Owning slaves was legal. You should not be allowed to slander law abiding citizens.
What is immoral about the exigent circumstance clause?
Do you believe that police SHOULDN'T be allowed to enter your home if there's an armed fugitive inside and they're positive he's there, they should still wait for your approval or refusal?
No. The house you saw the police entering without knocking and announcing was the home of the man who called the police and said "this guy is on my property right now"
Exigent circumstances may make a warrantless search constitutional if probable cause exists. The existence of exigent circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact.[3] There is no absolute test for determining if exigent circumstances exist, but general factors have been identified. These include: clear evidence of probable cause; the seriousness of the offense and likelihood of destruction of evidence; limitations on the search to minimize the intrusion only to preventing destruction of evidence; and clear indications of exigency.
Exigency may be determined by: degree of urgency involved; amount of time needed to get a search warrant; whether evidence is about to be removed or destroyed; danger at the site; knowledge of the suspect that police are on his or her trail; and/or ready destructibility of the evidence.[4] In determining the time necessary to obtain a warrant, a telephonic warrant should be considered. As electronic data may be altered or eradicated in seconds, in a factually compelling case the doctrine of exigent circumstances will support a warrantless seizure.
Even in exigent circumstances, while a warrantless seizure may be permitted, a subsequent warrant to search may still be necessary.[5]
They went door to door searching, you fucking brain washed imbecile. Have to beat you over the head with reality for you to accept it. You are wrong........... now shut the fuck up.
How many times are you gonna post it? I know what it says.
No one else's home was entered illegally that day
quoted for proof of ignorance.
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.
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."
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote