|
|
Post by dasfuchs on May 23, 2011 21:21:30 GMT -5
... Mountain out of a molehill, even when considering the circumstances and subsequent ruling. Then why can't any of you explain what limits remain? If the cops can enter your home because you moved after they knocked on your door, then what isn't probably cause? Because, once more for the illiterate, they chased a perp who created the circumstances that warranted this. If it was a random "We just felt like walking in and knocking on your door for no reason" then this would be illegal as all hell. |
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on May 23, 2011 21:33:29 GMT -5
Is this still being argued? Holy FUCK, guys, come on now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on May 24, 2011 2:03:19 GMT -5
Because, once more for the illiterate, they chased a perp who created the circumstances that warranted this. If it was a random "We just felt like walking in and knocking on your door for no reason" then this would be illegal as all hell. And just because the police didn't mean to enter the wrong apartment shouldn't exempt them from the requirements of the fourth amendment. Just because this particular case doesn't look like an outright abuse of exigency, and more of an honest mistake, doesn't mean fourth amendment rights should be tossed aside. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on May 24, 2011 2:09:04 GMT -5
Because, once more for the illiterate, they chased a perp who created the circumstances that warranted this. If it was a random "We just felt like walking in and knocking on your door for no reason" then this would be illegal as all hell. And just because the police didn't mean to enter the wrong apartment shouldn't exempt them from the requirements of the fourth amendment. Just because this particular case doesn't look like an outright abuse of exigency, and more of an honest mistake, doesn't mean fourth amendment rights should be tossed aside.  |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on May 24, 2011 4:55:30 GMT -5
Because, once more for the illiterate, they chased a perp who created the circumstances that warranted this. If it was a random "We just felt like walking in and knocking on your door for no reason" then this would be illegal as all hell. And just because the police didn't mean to enter the wrong apartment shouldn't exempt them from the requirements of the fourth amendment. Just because this particular case doesn't look like an outright abuse of exigency, and more of an honest mistake, doesn't mean fourth amendment rights should be tossed aside. \ The police had probable cause to enter the damn apartment! How is this hard to grasp? They had to pick a door and they picked the one that sounded like the perp was in (and destroying evidence). It doesn't fucking matter that they were mistaken. Would you be saying the same thing if they had instead busted in to find a rape or murder in progress? Christ, we've already had Erictheblue, who is pursuing a law degree, say that they were within the law on this. Who do you think is more likely to understand the law here? I'm not sure what kind of formal education Shane has regarding law, but I do know that she has a lot of contact with people in that field. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on May 24, 2011 6:30:51 GMT -5
Because, once more for the illiterate, they chased a perp who created the circumstances that warranted this. If it was a random "We just felt like walking in and knocking on your door for no reason" then this would be illegal as all hell. And just because the police didn't mean to enter the wrong apartment shouldn't exempt them from the requirements of the fourth amendment. Just because this particular case doesn't look like an outright abuse of exigency, and more of an honest mistake, doesn't mean fourth amendment rights should be tossed aside. Probable cause, motherfucker. |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on May 24, 2011 10:14:44 GMT -5
"Mah rights is violated"
Learn what your rights are first
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on May 24, 2011 10:22:47 GMT -5
"Mah rights is violated" Learn what your rights are first So much this. I think it was quoted somewhere in this thread that the fourth amendment allows for search and seizures based on probable cause, which is what happened in this case. As for what Napoleon said... I took a class in criminal law as well as a basic criminal investigation class and I have my books still. My major was... Criminal Justice (shocker). I also have a way to contact my professor who is a former cop. But if you're not going to listen to someone majoring in law... |
|
|
|
Post by jackmann on May 24, 2011 13:37:13 GMT -5
Look, who are we supposed to believe, Shane? You so-called "experts"? Or a random person on the internet with access to Wikipedia?
I think the choice is clear.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on May 24, 2011 14:34:36 GMT -5
Look, who are we supposed to believe, Shane? You so-called "experts"? Or a random person on the internet with access to Wikipedia? I think the choice is clear. I'm a random person with the internet and I can access wikipedia. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on May 24, 2011 14:44:15 GMT -5
Look, who are we supposed to believe, Shane? You so-called "experts"? Or a random person on the internet with access to Wikipedia? I think the choice is clear. I'm a random person with the internet and I can access wikipedia. I believe you, Vene. jackmann: you win one internets. |
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on May 25, 2011 4:51:22 GMT -5
While you're all on this appeal to authority kick, maybe you could explain to Justice Ginsberg that she doesn't really know anything about law.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on May 25, 2011 5:05:28 GMT -5
While you're all on this appeal to authority kick, maybe you could explain to Justice Ginsberg that she doesn't really know anything about law. Just like physicists don't know what they are talking about with regards to things like gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics and the like? Protip: People with degrees on specific areas tend to be much better versed in the intricacies and details of that particular subject, so their arguments will have more weight behind them due to a better understanding being there. If someone with a law degree, particularly on criminal law, is telling you that you are wrong in a particular assessment regarding a ruling dealing with criminal law, most likely is that they are right and you are wrong. Or are we going to start disregarding professionals and qualified people on their areas of expertise? |
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on May 25, 2011 8:32:36 GMT -5
While you're all on this appeal to authority kick, maybe you could explain to Justice Ginsberg that she doesn't really know anything about law. Justice Ginsberg knows just as much about the law as the other justices on the court, including those who wrote the majority opinion, thank you very much. |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on May 25, 2011 9:46:20 GMT -5
While you're all on this appeal to authority kick, maybe you could explain to Justice Ginsberg that she doesn't really know anything about law. Much like rights, learn what "appeal to authority" actually means. Thus far we've two people that took courses in criminal justice, the law itself, and the courts all telling you you're wrong because you don't understand either the law or grasp the concept of what happened in this case. |
|
