The problem of evil

[Loudmouth]

What if they push their way into your home and take property from you without your permission and without a warrant?

Police also have the right to do a search without a warrant if there is probable cause, but they can be prosecuted if they can't prove to a court of law that there was probable cause. A theif stealing stuff out of a store does not have probable cause. It isn't even close to the same thing.

Maybe so, but how often are they held accountable that way? All they have to do is say something like, "The suspect was holding an object that I believed to be a weapon and I feared for my life and the lives of my fellow officers and took appropriate action to neutralize a perceived threat". Bingo! Justified!

As we have seen with other cases, citizens use the same justifications for self defense.

 

[Dan Bert]

For thousands of years except for the prophets...men believed that sun rose in the East and sets in the west. Today we know that it is an illusion ...it is the earth rotation that give the illusion of the sun rising and setting. This illusion is so strong that we still use those terms.

God made all things...so should we not go to God for the truth?

bert10

Knowledge of truth can be demonstrated.

 

[bhsmte]

For thousands of years except for the prophets...men believed that sun rose in the East and sets in the west. Today we know that it is an illusion ...it is the earth rotation that give the illusion of the sun rising and setting. This illusion is so strong that we still use those terms.

God made all things...so should we not go to God for the truth?

bert10

I don't see any demonstration that God did anything.

 

[Dan Bert]

The point is some of the prophets knew that it was the world rotating, as they were shown the truth. The unbelievers continued in their foolishness. As they do so today.

dan

I don't see any demonstration that God did anything.

 

[Resha Caner]

Is it immoral to lobby?

I don't know that there's one answer to that.

 

[bhsmte]

The point is some of the prophets knew that it was the world rotating, as they were shown the truth. The unbelievers continued in their foolishness. As they do so today.

dan

Still don't see a demonstration that God did anything.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't know that there's one answer to that.

Would this mean;

As long as you personally feel the reason for the lobbying is moral, it is ok?

 

[Aldebaran]

Police also have the right to do a search without a warrant if there is probable cause, but they can be prosecuted if they can't prove to a court of law that there was probable cause. A theif stealing stuff out of a store does not have probable cause. It isn't even close to the same thing.

Was that "right" granted to the police by our constitution? The way I read it, it gives the people the right to refuse such searches until a warrant is obtained:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This seems pretty straightforward. If a cop thinks he has probable cause, then he has to get a warrant for a particular place and a particular thing. Today, they think that means "I feel suspicious of you which gives me probable cause, so I'm gonna push my way into your home and take whatever supports my suspicions or I think I could build a case with, THEN get a warrant afterward describing a search that was already done".

Does it make you feel safe and secure in your person, home or possessions knowing a cop can come into your home without a warrant and rummage through your things on this basis?

As we have seen with other cases, citizens use the same justifications for self defense.

But it doesn't carry nearly the weight as it does when a cop uses it.

 

[bhsmte]

Was that "right" granted to the police by our constitution? The way I read it, it gives the people the right to refuse such searches until a warrant is obtained:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This seems pretty straightforward. If a cop thinks he has probable cause, then he has to get a warrant for a particular place and a particular thing. Today, they think that means "I feel suspicious of you which gives me probable cause, so I'm gonna push my way into your home and take whatever supports my suspicions or I think I could build a case with, THEN get a warrant afterward describing a search that was already done".

Does it make you feel safe and secure in your person, home or possessions knowing a cop can come into your home without a warrant and rummage through your things on this basis?




But it doesn't carry nearly the weight as it does when a cop uses it.

A cop can enter without a warrant and probable cause, if it is reasonable to assume their is an imminent threat. Lets say, a cop is outside a home and he hears screaming and gun shots coming from inside. In situations like that, he doesn't have to run to a judge, to gain entry to the home and or search it for weapons.

 

[Aldebaran]

A cop can enter without a warrant and probable cause, if it is reasonable to assume their is an imminent threat. Lets say, a cop is outside a home and he hears screaming and gun shots coming from inside. In situations like that, he doesn't have to run to a judge, to gain entry to the home and or search it for weapons.

But what if a cop wants to enter your home just to "look around and make sure everything's alright" after someone simply makes an accusation against you--and then when you say they don't have your permission or a warrant, they say they're going to do it anyway because your refusal makes them suspicious that you have something to hide? In other words, if you don't give up your rights when asked, then it must mean you're in the wrong and will be presumed to be in the wrong until you prove otherwise (which not only means violating your 4th amendments rights, but also pinning on you the presumption of guilt until you prove your innocence).

 

[bhsmte]

But what if a cop wants to enter your home just to "look around and make sure everything's alright" after someone simply makes an accusation against you--and then when you say they don't have your permission or a warrant, they say they're going to do it anyway because your refusal makes them suspicious that you have something to hide? In other words, if you don't give up your rights when asked, then it must mean you're in the wrong and will be presumed to be in the wrong until you prove otherwise (which not only means violating your 4th amendments rights, but also pinning on you the presumption of guilt until you prove your innocence).

If the cop can not demonstrate an imminent threat or have a reasonable suspicion of an imminent threat, they can not enter or search without a valid warrant.

If a cop was to claim an imminent threat and later on, it is shown that this was wrong, whatever they find in the search, can not be used in court.

 

[Aldebaran]

If a cop was to claim an imminent threat and later on, it is shown that this was wrong, whatever they find in the search, can not be used in court.

Wouldn't that mean that if a cop was told you were pointing a gun at someone, and then he comes into your home looking for a gun but discovered there wasn't one there (even after tearing the place apart since he knows the accuser has no reason to lie, of course) but instead finds marijuana, cocaine, heroine, etc., he can't charge you in court for having illegal drugs?

 

[bhsmte]

Wouldn't that mean that if a cop was told you were pointing a gun at someone, and then he comes into your home looking for a gun but discovered there wasn't one there (even after tearing the place apart since he knows the accuser has no reason to lie, of course) but instead finds marijuana, cocaine, heroine, etc., he can't charge you in court for having illegal drugs?

It would depend if the original search was deemed proper.

If you get pulled over in you're car, because a cop saw you firing a weapon out the window, they can search your car legally. If they happen to find drugs (nothing to do with the firing of the weapon), they can use that against you, because the original search was valid.

 

[Aldebaran]

It would depend if the original search was deemed proper.

If you get pulled over in you're car, because a cop saw you firing a weapon out the window, they can search your car legally. If they happen to find drugs (nothing to do with the firing of the weapon), they can use that against you, because the original search was valid.

This is what I'm getting at. I'm trying to discuss the correct interpretation of the 4th amendment rather than modern government thinking on the matter. Cops and prosecutors and judges find all kinds of behavior on the part of cops to be proper. If you disagree, watch this: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...g-psychotic-man-death-video-article-1.2644038

 

[Resha Caner]

Would this mean; As long as you personally feel the reason for the lobbying is moral, it is ok?

OK to who?

 

[bhsmte]

OK to who?

To you.

 

[Resha Caner]

To you.

Isn't it implied in your question that it would be OK with the one who is doing the lobbying?

 

[bhsmte]

Isn't it implied in your question that it would be OK with the one who is doing the lobbying?

It was implied in you're response, that there were different answers to the question.

 

[Aldebaran]

It was implied in you're response, that there were different answers to the question.

Bhsmte: Did you happen to check out the link I showed you? Does the fact that this guy was killed like this and then it was dismissed as justified mean that his rights weren't violated just because it was ruled that way? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...g-psychotic-man-death-video-article-1.2644038

 

[Resha Caner]

It was implied in you're response, that there were different answers to the question.

There could be different answers. The way the question is asked makes a difference in the response.