- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 5,419
- Likes
- 1,899
Once again, there could be no possible alternative explaination other than "The evil police just ran up to a house and ordered everyone out just 'cuz."
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
So if you don't have all the info, how can you conclude there's no exigency?Thats not an exigent circumstance. It has to be a situation that requires entry NOW. Like someone inside the building calling for help, the smell of MJ smoke, or something like that. If the occupants are not believed to be in distress and are not believed to be engaged in the destruction of evidence then no entry.
Further, LEOs are allowed to go in only far enough to do what is necessary. For example if they need to go 10 ft in to arrest someone, they can not then sweep the building for evidence without a warrant.
Its a safe bet that they will make up some story to try to show exigency, but it will be pretty apparent its BS.
Why were the occupants made to put their arms on their heads? Seriously. If you are searching for a badguy why treat the occupants like criminals?
- - - Updated - - -
I keep hoping someone from this board who lives in watertown will give us some First hand info.
The ACLU is not cool with it.
Yes, there's an "exigent circumstance" clause in 4A, but it's not what most liberals think it means. American jurisprudence has also required probable cause, e.g. "The suspect has entered the structure!" Absent this, the "exigent circumstance" exception is a moot point.
This has been at least the 3rd or 4th time this has been posted.
[video=youtube_share;B_Gb6i5DF9k]http://youtu.be/B_Gb6i5DF9k[/video]
Maybe this is a little more clear that it wasn't voluntary.
Someone on this fourm has to have some connection to those "heros" that stormed the city that day... What are they saying?
Not saying it wasn't, but everyone here is so quick to bemoan a 4th AMD violation from a video without any sort of context. Considering most of the stories I heard went something like "The cops asked if there could be anyone in the house and I told them I was good so they went away," I don't see anyone asking what may have made this instance different.
Disgusting. "Rescuing" them at gunpoint in the words of the newscaster.
Not cool.
I said this in an earlier post but I think it bears repeating;
Few Americans understand the Constitution and the God given rights enumerated there. They don't understand the 4th amendment any more than they understand the 2nd.
No one in Watertown has an LTC...OfficerObie59,
what, in your opinion, would have happened if someone answered the door while having an AR slung across their chest, and a pistol on the hip? As far as i know it's kosher for you to do whatever you want in your house.
In my mind, i can't imagine it playing out too well.
The word "reasonable" is not in the 4th.Yeah, like the word "reasonable" in the 4th Amendment. A lot of people around here read that word right out of it.