|
|
Post by Kit Walker on May 31, 2011 14:24:24 GMT -5
Yes, if someone fleeing the police manage sot get away and hide, then the cops can just go into your home because you had the bad luck to live in the area. The ruling does not state that the police have the right to do a house by house search. It does not say that they can run wild. It says that when the police have a reasonable belief that a suspect is behind one of two doors, they have probable cause enough to pick one. They don't have to say "aw shucks, two doors! We'll never find him now!". Because letting the police actually chase criminals makes this a police state.  |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on May 31, 2011 14:27:05 GMT -5
To a certain extent, the Supreme Court saying that it's legal means that it is legal and complies to the Constitution. They define what it means, after all. To anybody saying it violates the Constitution, you're wrong. You are wrong by definition because the Supreme Court says you are wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by booley on May 31, 2011 15:19:15 GMT -5
Yes, if someone fleeing the police manages to get away and hide, then the cops can just go into your home because you had the bad luck to live in the area. So yes they get away scott free.... as long as they also manage to get out of the building without the cops seeing them (since they know he's in there some where) and before the cops can get a warrant which would allow them to search legally, and if the guy also manages to evade the cops who will undoubtidly keep searching, especially now that they will probably at that point have a good idea of who this person is and where he lives. It seems your scenario has a lot of "what ifs". Especially when the alternative to criminals sometimes getting away is a police state. Are you willingly being obtuse? It isn't a case of "Criminal gets away, therefore, free searches in suspected neighbourhood". It is a case of " Uhh that's pretty much what the scenario I was responding too leads too. Criminal gets out of sight of police therefore any place he could have potentially gone too becomes fair game. Ok what only 2 choices? And why does that constitute probable cause? Oh you are basing this on the case in the OP?! Ok except that that sounds are NOT why the police entered that apartment. The sounds of movement occurred AFTER the cops knocked on the door. topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/09-1272Which led to the original constitutional question.. if the movement was the "probable cause" but the movement occurred because of the cop's actions, then what would not constitute probably cause? No but hopefully the link I provided will leave you able to form a more informed opinion. Which still doesn't answer the question of why not get a warrant brought up in the case. It doesn't even make any sense in regards to the guy getting away (which was what my response was about) since if the guy they were chasing was in there, he wasn't going anywhere. Let me ask you this because so far no one else seems to know. What then would not be within probable cause? if the law was so clear then how did to get enough justices to accept the case? Why did the lower courts disagree with you? Why did Ginsburg dissent? Cases don't get heard by the SCOTUS unless at least 4 justices think there's a constitutional question. Why not? By itself probably not but it certainly allows the police more leeway. And since the defense against a police state was that the police had limits... Again it was the sounds of movement which by the police's own admission was the reason they opened the door. Even if evidence was being destroyed, it was initiated by the police knocking on the door. But the sounds only occurred because the cops were banging on the door. So if you reacting to something the police did (and I have no idea how one could have opened the door and not moved) then what would not be probable cause? You might want to look up that phrase "false Dichotomy" because it doesn't seem to mean what you think it means. OR for examples go back earlier in this where many defended the police actions on the grounds that if the 4th amendment was followed as it had been before with a warrant then criminals might get away. In other words, the cops cant' be bothered with warrants because there are criminals to catch and they might escape. OF course as I have explained (ad nauseum it seems) the 4th amendment was NEVER designed to make the job of the police easy. The fact is that protecting civil liberties does sometimes allow the guilty to get away. This isn't hypothetical. It happens. Anyone in law enforcement or the legal business knows this happens. The founding fathers knew it would happen. Yet they still wrote these rules the way they did. IF you cant' be bothered to understand why these rules were written, then you will keep missing "catching bad guys " has never been considered an acceptable excuse before to ignore civil liberties. And I am sure you think I smell and don't tip well at restaurants. Too bad you never bother to make your case as to why. I mean, you never bother to explain how any of the provisos I mentioned weren't relevant. Why not? This isn't WOW. It's not as if the cops stop when you get outside their aggro range. IF one is going to argue about the constitution and the law then yes, "what if's" are kind of important no matter what side of the issue you happen to be on. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on May 31, 2011 15:32:54 GMT -5
To a certain extent, the Supreme Court saying that it's legal means that it is legal and complies to the Constitution. They define what it means, after all. To anybody saying it violates the Constitution, you're wrong. You are wrong by definition because the Supreme Court says you are wrong. This! IF you cant' be bothered to understand why these rules were written, then you will keep missing "catching bad guys " has never been considered an acceptable excuse before to ignore civil liberties. Your the one that does not understand the rules. The Supreme Court is the judge of what the rules say. They said that in this case the police did have probably cause. That means that the police had the right to enter and that you are wrong. The Supreme Court is kinda like a Dungon Master in a D & D game, they are never wrong! |
|
|
|
Post by booley on May 31, 2011 15:44:30 GMT -5
The ruling does not state that the police have the right to do a house by house search. |
|
|
|
Post by booley on May 31, 2011 15:47:28 GMT -5
To a certain extent, the Supreme Court saying that it's legal means that it is legal and complies to the Constitution. They define what it means, after all. To anybody saying it violates the Constitution, you're wrong. You are wrong by definition because the Supreme Court says you are wrong. Which is an argument from authority. Yes the SCOTUS sets precedent. But it's not that they cant' be wrong or that their interpretation can't be changed later. So just because the SCOTUS ruled on something does not mean the discussion ends. IF it did, we'd still have segregation and anti-gay sodomy laws. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on May 31, 2011 15:56:16 GMT -5
To a certain extent, the Supreme Court saying that it's legal means that it is legal and complies to the Constitution. They define what it means, after all. To anybody saying it violates the Constitution, you're wrong. You are wrong by definition because the Supreme Court says you are wrong. Which is an argument from authority. Yes the SCOTUS sets precedent. But it's not that they cant' be wrong or that their interpretation can't be changed later. So just because the SCOTUS ruled on something does not mean the discussion ends. IF it did, we'd still have segregation and anti-gay sodomy laws. Well the Court is the authority. Yes the Court can change their interpretation later on, that does not mean they where wrong. Nor does it mean that the discussion ends. It just means that while you may not agree with the court, or you think that laws don't protect people the way they should, it does not mean your interpretation maybe right. |
|
|
|
Post by booley on May 31, 2011 15:58:30 GMT -5
.... .... Your the one that does not understand the rules. The Supreme Court is the judge of what the rules say. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on May 31, 2011 16:02:10 GMT -5
And you and the others have yet to explain why Ginsburg is wrong. Did you forget she's a justice too? She is wrong because she was in the minority. That is how the Court works. Bad, DM or bad call, OK. Wrong, NO! |
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on May 31, 2011 16:03:24 GMT -5
Uhh that's pretty much what the scenario I was responding too leads too. Criminal gets out of sight of police therefore any place he could have potentially gone too becomes fair game. ... Okay, you are a paranoid idiot. Allow me to point out why: No it didn't, considering they only went in where they had good reason to suspect the criminal had gone. The reason being there were two ways he could have gone, and they went for the door where there was noise coming from behind. Since they can't see through doors and they were in hot pursuit, they acted upon this in good faith the criminal would be in the place. Ok what only 2 choices? And why does that constitute probable cause? Criminal made a turn into a corridor and went out of sight. Cops saw the criminal go into the corridor. Upon getting to the corridor, they see it is a dead-end and there is only two doors. Behind one of the doors, they can hear audible noise coming from within. Which of the two doors is more likely to have the criminal within during a hot pursuit? Please don't make this worse for yourself. Oh you are basing this on the case in the OP?! Ok except that that sounds are NOT why the police entered that apartment. The sounds of movement occurred AFTER the cops knocked on the door. topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/09-1272Which led to the original constitutional question.. if the movement was the "probable cause" but the movement occurred because of the cop's actions, then what would not constitute probably cause? A criminal could have been inside either door, and the cops were looking to figure out which door was the most likely one for the criminal to be behind. That is all. No big conspiracy or abuse going on. Which still doesn't answer the question of why not get a warrant brought up in the case. It doesn't even make any sense in regards to the guy getting away (which was what my response was about) since if the guy they were chasing was in there, he wasn't going anywhere. Right, because there simply was no way in hell the criminal wouldn't have made a further move to evade the police when they would be hurrying to get a warrant. Nope, he would just stick around and wait. Let me ask you this because so far no one else seems to know. What then would not be within probable cause? Seeing the criminal run into one apartment block, but then going into another block away from where the criminal actually went to make a search? That would be quite clear. if the law was so clear then how did to get enough justices to accept the case? Why did the lower courts disagree with you? Why did Ginsburg dissent? Cases don't get heard by the SCOTUS unless at least 4 justices think there's a constitutional question. Seeking clarification is not a sign of conspiracy or evil-doing. It might simply be a case of ironing out important details so to make sure there isn't further confusion later on. Why not? By itself probably not but it certainly allows the police more leeway. And since the defense against a police state was that the police had limits... But they do have limits already in place. Reasonable ones. And this does not give the police a blank cheque to search any place for the sake of it. To think so is paranoia to the extreme. Again it was the sounds of movement which by the police's own admission was the reason they opened the door. Even if evidence was being destroyed, it was initiated by the police knocking on the door. But the sounds only occurred because the cops were banging on the door. Criminal had run into one of the doors. Cops were closing in and they were aware that it was only one of either door that criminal would have been in. In knocking, they were checking to hear for any possible reaction that might tip them into believing the criminal would be trying to make a further move, whether to destroy evidence or attempt further escape. So if you reacting to something the police did (and I have no idea how one could have opened the door and not moved) then what would not be probable cause? And you are missing the point constantly and I'm sure most here are tired trying to point this out to you. One or the other. One had sound behind. Is this too much for you to understand? You might want to look up that phrase "false Dichotomy" because it doesn't seem to mean what you think it means. More limits, or police state. Sounds like a False Dichotomy to me. It sticks. I mean, you never bother to explain how any of the provisos I mentioned weren't relevant. Why not? This isn't WOW. It's not as if the cops stop when you get outside their aggro range. IF one is going to argue about the constitution and the law then yes, "what if's" are kind of important no matter what side of the issue you happen to be on. Booley, I don't have time to write a damn thesis for every fucking response. Also, enough has been said in this damn thread already, so I don't see why I have to repeat everything everyone has said AGAIN, just to satisfy your ego. Or must we regurgitate another 15 or so pages? |
|
|
|
Post by booley on May 31, 2011 16:15:13 GMT -5
Well the Court is the authority. Yes the Court can change their interpretation later on, that does not mean they where wrong. Nor does it mean that the discussion ends. I wonder if you have noticed that what you said refutes what you said above it. Nor does it mean it's wrong. Which means it has nothing to do with this discussion. No one is arguing if this is the new precedent. In fact, that it is precedent is part of the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by booley on May 31, 2011 16:17:55 GMT -5
And you and the others have yet to explain why Ginsburg is wrong. Did you forget she's a justice too? She is wrong because she was in the minority. That is how the Court works. Bad, DM or bad call, OK. Wrong, NO! Again appeal to authority. Not a good argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on May 31, 2011 16:32:19 GMT -5
Again appeal to authority. Not a good argument. So if I cite the consensus opinion on the Theory of Evolution, am I appealing to authority fallaciously? Because you're saying that it is a fallacious argument to cite the Supreme Court's majority opinion on constitutional law. Here's a hint: it is only a bad argument to cite an authority when that authority is not actually an authority in the proper field. If I want to, for instance, cite Stan Lee's opinion on comic book writing in a debate on the topic then that is perfectly valid. If I want to cite Stan Lee's opinion on the effects of radiation on human DNA, that is fallacious because he is not an authority on that. I bring this up because 1) there is pretty wide berth for interpretation in the Bill of Rights on some finer points and 2) The Supreme Court of the United States are the be-all-end-all legal authority on those interpretations. So they're a valid authority. rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority |
|
|
|
Post by booley on May 31, 2011 17:09:31 GMT -5
... Okay, you are a paranoid idiot. [/quote} ahh so we have reached the name calling portion. Good that's always the most creative. Except here's what wrong with that. First, you're account does not follow the actual account the police gave. Here, let me give it to you again... topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/09-1272They didnt' see the door they went to close. All they knew was that they heard an unseen door close and thought that this might have been the door based on what they thought was a strong smell of marijuana. I cant' find any mention of this "only 2 options" you keep going on about in any of the references I can find. The cops didn't know where in the apartment the guy they were chasing was. Secondly and this is important.... they went based on the sounds of movement that began AFTER they knocked, identifying themselves as police. In short, they caused the very thing they said was their probable cause. So can can you confine your argument to things that actually happened? Because calling me an idiot when you can't seem to read the facts even after I have shown you the official account seems really ironic. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on May 31, 2011 17:15:29 GMT -5
She is wrong because she was in the minority. That is how the Court works. Bad, DM or bad call, OK. Wrong, NO! Again appeal to authority. Not a good argument. Not in this case, in law it actually is defined by authority. The job of the Supreme Court is to decide what the law means. If they say it is x, then it is x. At least, until they decide it is y. Because of the Court's ruling, you are wrong. You can try and say that it shouldn't be that way, but as far as the legal system is concerned, you are wrong. Legally speaking, the cops were in the right. They are right because the Supreme Court said they are right and the reasons for why they said that have already been posted in this thread. At this point you are outright denying reality. |
|
