Wow. The police are going door-to-door. Hmm. Did they obtain a search warrant for each house?
R.W.: If a gun man was holding my family hostage in a back bedroom, I'm not sure I would want the cops to go file 1000 search warrant petitions and wait for a judge to sign them all. I would assume there is something in the law which covers an active pursuit.
Me: Probable cause, Rick. They can enter without a warrant with probable cause. Beyond that, being secure in our persons and property is inviolable.
K.M.: So were warrantless wiretaps. Slippery slope!!
S.H.: It is called "hot pursuit." If I recall my old Criminal Procedure correctly, hot pursuit is an exception. If the police searched a homeowner's house, finding the bomber, the bomber had no right to privacy in that house, because he did not own it. On the other hand, if the cops found a bunch of illegal drugs belonging to the real homeowner, then there could be complications for charges against the true homeowner.
Me: I defer to you, my friend. Does a door to door search qualify as hot pursuit? It seem to me they are not following a suspect into private property, they are searching to find someone whose location is not known. A property owner shouldn't have to forfeit his rights in that situation?
R.K.: Unbelievable, people had there legs blown off and your worried about someone on private property. I haven't seen all of the news did someone ask for a warrant?
Me: Do you think that a terrible tragedy should mean the police gets to barge in and search your house without probable cause? What other excuses should the government have to declare that they can throw out the constitution?
Me: If the government come to my door, they're going to have to respect my rights, "emergency" or not.
R.K.: I think that anyone that questions this at such a tragic time is STUPID! and yes I think they can and should barge in, it could protect the innocent property owner or save his life. Your way out line on this one.
R.K.: I hope your house doesn't catch on fire. It's the government that puts the fire out you know.
Me: Yup, I'm stupid to question the police searching my home without probable cause. They should just barge in and tear it apart. They should also be able to round up Japanese people and inter them in a camp, legalize slavery of blacks, and...
O.C.: They aren't searching to incriminate you, dumbass... You think SWAT guys give a shit about your grow op or the hooker? (well ok, they might call you on the hooker...)
Probable cause doesn't even come into play here because the search has nothing to do with the home owner (other than assuring their safety). If charges were brought against a home owner due to observations during these searches, they would be cut down in court.
'Searches' while under martial law (which they basically were) and profiling/internment/slavery are completely separate unrelated issues.
Please take this the wrong way... But I'm starting to think your brain is just one big pile of mush with no boundaries on any ideas. Everything seems to be interrelated with you, to the point where every topic is the same topic, thus it is impossible to have a meaningful conversation with you that doesn't just spiral into meaningless bullshit.
I bet you get that alot tho, huh?
O.C.: You try to change the topic so often that the conversation becomes 100% irrelevant.
Me: Respectful dialogue is a foreign concept to you, isn't it O.C.. Anyone who disagrees with your narrow world view is a dumbass or a boob. Must be nice in your land of unicorns and rainbows.
J.S.: O.C. is a lib. Libs are idiots... Sayin it like it is... Gotta say...I'm pissed. I'll say it again. Libs are idiots...
Me: R.K.is a long time good friend. He can talk to me like he has and we remain friends. Not so with O.C..
B.R.: Oh dear, what fun... The comparative width of O.C.'s world view would make your head spin, Rich. If his is narrow, then yours could fit in the eye of a needle.
On the other hand, you can both learn a lot from each other, so for my entertainment's sake, I hope you pick up on another topic with more tact all around.
Me: I can only judge him by his boorish comments, B.R. If he has a wide view, he has an insurmountable task to demonstrate it. And I note for the record your lack of tact by dishonoring me. I can therefore postulate your lack of a wide view.
J.S.: B.R., Ditto to what I told O.C., same goes for you. You are all moral relativists that sway with the wind and adjusts to whatever narrative you are speaking at the time.
Me: Easy, J.S.. I know that it's tempting to respond to this in a like manner, but please resist the urge. You only end up playing into their knee-jerk stereotypes. You may argue the points, but do not respond in kind by making it personal.
O.C.: See there you go again... (But yes I am getting frustrated and being boorish, but thats the only response I can muster given your strict aversion to reason and or sound logic.) I assure you you are the first person to bring out this side of me. For that I commend you. I don't mean to attack you personally, just your arguments. All in good fun unless one of us decides to take it personally. I will again do my best to be respectful now that I have a bit more of your attention.
The width of my views has zero bearing on your continued inability to present a coherent argument that doesn't instantly bleed over into a completely different topic the moment it is challenged or questioned.
I love 'respectful dialog', I'm actually quite good at it. I just don't think anything I've done with you counts as dialog... and I see no reason to respect your opinions given that you choose not to explain them precisely and only offer to change the topic to something unrelated rather than dig to the core of any issue you present or even make any attempt to isolate what exactly is it we disagree on.
You can disagree with my world view all you want without being a boob. Disagreeing with it always, on principle, with zero explanation when questioned makes one a boob, for sure. Constantly misinterpreting issues (thinking the house to house searches in Boston have anything to do with incriminating the home owners) is what makes one a dumbass.
Lib meaning liberal? No I don't identify as that actually. Libertarian maybe... I'm quite conservative on some issues, quite liberal on others, and hardline moderate on yet others. Don't make assumptions based on who I choose to pick fights with.
Rich, if you can't handle me getting frustrated and throwing you a bit of shit (again, all in good fun) then yea we aren't gonna work out as long term friends. All I am doing is feeling you out a bit and trying to determine if you are in fact able to find that respectful dialog you mentioned. Our exchanges before now have been nothing more than me trying to make sense of your keyboard diarrhea and you responding with more of the same, gets frustrating pretty quick. It seems to me that you are so so so stuck in a pattern of 'non-thought' that you need a boor like me to call you on it if its ever going to change.
In closing: My dad could totally beat up your dad. (not true... : ( )
B.R.: Yes, Rich, I also challenge O.C. to show you the breadth of his perspective, in as tactful a manner as each conversation deserves. I don't see my comment as dishonoring, but rather my duty as mutual friend to call a bad presumption when I see one. As J.S. says, I'm sayin it like it is.
Speaking of dishonoring and J.S., you sir have displayed a snort-worthy mixture of ignorance and prejudice, by slandering those you do not know and negatively generalizing about 50% of America. I don't know a thing about you, so I'll refrain from assuming that you're as constipated and condescending in the rest of your life as you've been in these brief exchanges. You're probably a really nice guy, at least to those you don't feel threatened by. You'll note that my impression of you has not been shaped by any knee-jerk stereotypes. I have very healthy knees, and I'm not prone to stereotypes.
O.C.: Wait, so dishonoring someone leads to a postulation that the dishonorer has a narrow world view? Why?
Me: Feel free to make vague charges, O.C., while portraying yourself as high-minded and tolerant.Your arrogance is unseemly.
But you haven't wrote a single thing to substantiate your charges against me. If it makes you feel good to portray those who disagree with you as low-brow, by all means, proceed. Show me your superior sensibilities once again.
O.C.: It seems you either blend two unrelated issues together (irrelevant) or change the topic so that nothing can be discussed in depth and lead to an agreement or isolation of a point to disagree on.
Me: Just keep attacking, I'm sure you'll win the argument.
O.C.: Way to continue to not answer my questions or engage on any meaningful level. Do you have anything to say about my last two comments? Or are you just going to continue with your constant cop out responses?
O.C.: Scroll back up and look at your original post. Note how far off topic we are. Repeat with most of your posts. Notice a pattern?
Me: Yes, I looked. You took the topic on a tangent and yet expect me to treat your vapid comments with respect, after meaningfully calling me a dumbass and having a brain of mush. But it's all in good fun, you're just trying to determine my worthiness as a friend. You must be kidding.
Me: Typical leftist escalation.
1) Pretend to be interested in an exchange of ideas
2) Post one or two thoughtful comments
3) Introduce a hint of hostility, then walk it back or justify it
4) Assume an air of superiority, as if he's much smarter than anyone else.
5) Continue to increase hostility.
6) Begin to accuse his interlocutor of not answering questions and veering off topic why doing the very same thing himself
7) Start making personal insults then claim his interlocutor is treating him unfairly.
8) Diminish his interlocutor's standing and intellect by manufacturing charges and questioning motives
9) threaten to cut of his interlocutor because he is unreasonable, unthinking, or lacking thinking skills
10) deliver an insulting parting shot in order to justify his superiority.
O.C.: 'All in good fun' means that I am not specifically trying to provoke you to anger with no other goal, only trying to provoke you to thinking differently because I am convinced your current thought patterns are delusional. It became clear to me that I would only continue to get the same type of responses from you unless I provided a significantly different input. You weren't listening to what I had to say, now you are (a bit) but we're still not getting anywhere because you are more interested in copping out than debate.
You presented the topic as an inaccurate lumping together of two separate issues. One is property rights and search and seizure law. The other is the need for first responders to have unhindered access when in pursuit of a dangerous person. They do seem related, but a SWAT team on your lawn, or even in your home, trying to catch a dangerous suspect is completely different than anyone in uniform searching your home because they suspect to find incriminating evidence. Those are totally different scenarios. You are applying a hardline stance from one issue (that is perfectly defensible in that case) to the other issue where it has no bearing at all. Your logic is defective here, if you can't see that... then I am at a complete loss as to how to even begin to reason with you.
Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Then change your behavior.
Note: you are still, really, not answering my questions.
O.C.: Can we focus on differentiating between the two scenarios? (Swat in hot pursuit VS search and seizure law)
Your view is that your right to refuse anyone access to your personal property will always trump first responders need for unimpeded access to your property with the specific intention of capturing a dangerous individual, correct? Or am I misinterpreting?
I think if that scenario played out as you hope it would you would find yourself zip tied face down on your lawn and potentially facing a charge of obstruction of justice. There are times when your individual rights are set aside for the greater good. This case is one of them.
I agree however, that we must be mindful that we do not give up our rights or allow them to be intentionally skirted by the fabrication of a similar scenario where the goal is in fact to incriminate property owners. I think it is pretty clear that this was not the case in Boston. Lets wait and see if any charges are brought against the people whose homes were searched.
Me: You really don't get it, do you? Persisting in the use of insulting hyperbolic descriptors like "delusional" is not debate and will gain you no responses to your questions. Until you can dial back the condescension and arrogance and dial up the maturity, we have nothing to talk about.
K.H.: As an ex-LEO...
Exigent circumstances allow for warrant less searches. This is also called 'Hot Pursuit' or 'Fresh Pursuit'. The allowance for entry is based on the preservation of "the need to circumvent the destruction of evidence, and the need to prevent the loss of life or serious injury".
The supreme court has ruled on several cases where they upheld a homeowner's 4th Amendment rights, and there are several cases where they sided with law enforcement. In the Boston case, I would think that a slippery slope was imminent with every house entry and LEO was briefed that the only thing they were looking for was the suspect and whatever evidence that might be linked to the suspect - clothing, blood, etc. If any charges were brought against a home owner non related to the 'hot pursuit of the bombing suspect', a sound defense for the property owner would be that their 4A was violated.
I'm sure there will be some test cases out of this event. It will prove interesting to watch.
Me: So K.H., what are the qualifiers for "hot pursuit?"
H.H.: Rich...there was no time limit when I was on the street. The quantifier was "the need to circumvent the destruction of evidence, and the need to prevent the loss of life or serious injury" as related to a known criminal act or the knowledge that a criminal act is imminent that may result in the loss of life. Like I said...slippery slope. I only made a few warrant less entries in my career. Once the evidence was preserved or the life was spared, we backed out and locked the scene down and then went after a search warrant.
Me: So if you found other unrelated criminal activity, the perpetrator would probably get off the charge, but probably would have been arrested, jailed, etc.?
K.H.: In the Boston case, I'm sure the orders were to ignore anything unrelated to bomber.
If you're 4A was found to be in violation, charges would be dropped and you're criminal record for the event would expunged - including LEO contact information which is recorded. If you were arrested and jailed, then you would be able to seek restitution based on violation of your civil rights.
Me: I see. Ok, most law enforcement people are trying to do the right thing, and are good officers. There are some that aren't, of course. And being human, mistakes can be made. How difficult is it for you personally to exercise that kind of on-the-spot-discernment? If you barged in on a grower, for example, how is it possible for you to "forget" what you saw?
K.H.: Rich...Human nature is you can't unsee things and you can't forget things. I'm sure that there will be some cases that will be brought in regards to this activity that will require a test of the 'system' and another supreme court ruling - hopefully in favor of keeping the constitution intact.
On the spot discernment is not allowed when the legal authority, this case the attorney's that may try the state or federal case; briefed LE on what evidence is being sought in connection with the suspect and the crime. They knew what they were looking for and were probably told that they don't have the time or resources to pursue anything else other than what their main target was.
O.C.: Thanks K.H.!
Rich, that wasn't hyperbole. I actually think you are delusional.
Defined as: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs.
Once again you cop out and find one word of my responses to focus on and disregard the rest. Thank you for clearly stating why you refused to answer my questions this time. Seeing as Kevin has managed to find some middle ground with you I see no reason to spend anymore time on this.
Thanks for your time.
No comments:
Post a Comment