cops murder doctor in his own home

[SmarterthanYou]

So your concept of "law" is sorted out in gunfights?

is there a real concept of law if the government doesn't follow it???????

 

[Into the Night]

I never said that

Correct. You ignored it.

 

[Into the Night]

again, you should just say that you'll give government all benefit of the doubt, regardless of the laws;..........you really have no clue about the Constitution either, so stop referencing it

Oddly enough, Wally is right here. Your home will not protect you from an arrest warrant.

 

[Into the Night]

lets make this fine line...............if the cops actually had a warrant, they did NOT NEED to sit outside and coax the homeowner outside,

Correct. They didn't need to sit outside and coax the homeowner outside. He was being arrested.

where his constitutional protections were lesser than inside the home.

The Constitution isn't 'protections'. It applies to what laws government can pass, not citizens. Nothing in the Constitution changes depending on your location.

Had those officers actually had a warrant,

They did.

Supreme Court precedence had given them power to enter that home to effect the arrest, so why didn't they immediately enter the home to affect the arrest?

I assume they thought there was no need, at least until he resisted arrest.

dont question me on the law, I'm 90% better educated than you on the law

Illiteracy: Sentences begin with capital letters.
Argument from randU fallacy. Elitism.
You have obviously ignored the authority of police to conduct an arrest. You don't know where that authority comes from, and you obviously don't know the law here.

 

[Into the Night]

is there a real concept of law if the government doesn't follow it???????

Yes. Even with a rogue government. The law still exists unchanged.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Correct. You ignored it.

then you're wrong.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Oddly enough, Wally is right here. Your home will not protect you from an arrest warrant.

I never said that. what I said is that if the cops had an arrest warrant, they would not have let the home boundary stop them. how hard is that to understand?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Correct. They didn't need to sit outside and coax the homeowner outside. He was being arrested.

The Constitution isn't 'protections'. It applies to what laws government can pass, not citizens. Nothing in the Constitution changes depending on your location.

They did.

I assume they thought there was no need, at least until he resisted arrest.

Illiteracy: Sentences begin with capital letters.
Argument from randU fallacy. Elitism.
You have obviously ignored the authority of police to conduct an arrest. You don't know where that authority comes from, and you obviously don't know the law here.

grammar nazi aside, and you've made the case before, if cops have a warrant, they do not need to respect the boundaries of the home, which is what these cops felt compelled to do until the ROOKIE made a mistake. but at least we know you are still a badge blower and bow down to government authority, right or wrong

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Yes. Even with a rogue government. The law still exists unchanged.

and your position when the government ignores the law??????

 

[Into the Night]

then you're wrong.

Why am I wrong because I agreed with you??

 

[Into the Night]

I never said that.

I know.

what I said is that if the cops had an arrest warrant, they would not have let the home boundary stop them. how hard is that to understand?

They didn't let a home boundary stop them. Are you trying to deny your own posts now??

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I know.

They didn't let a home boundary stop them. Are you trying to deny your own posts now??

stop the double speak. The cops did not have a warrant, which is why they were trying to coax him oustide so they could legally arrest him. The rookie deputy violated the doctors 4th Amendment by trying to grab him and pull him oustide.

 

[Into the Night]

stop the double speak.

What 'double speak'?

The cops did not have a warrant,

Not always necessary.

which is why they were trying to coax him oustide so they could legally arrest him.

A home will not protect you from arrest.

The rookie deputy violated the doctors 4th Amendment by trying to grab him and pull him oustide.

It is not a violation of the 4th amendment to conduct an arrest.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

What 'double speak'?

Not always necessary.

A home will not protect you from arrest.

It is not a violation of the 4th amendment to conduct an arrest.

there are some 'exigent' circumstances that don't require a warrant. this particular situation was not one of them.

It is indeed a violation of the 4th Amendment to enter a persons home if you don not have a warrant or exigent circumstances

 

[Into the Night]

there are some 'exigent' circumstances that don't require a warrant. this particular situation was not one of them.

No warrant is required to conduct an arrest.

It is indeed a violation of the 4th Amendment to enter a persons home if you don not have a warrant or exigent circumstances

You are not immune from arrest simply because you are in your home.

 

[Into the Night]

I never said that. what I said is that if the cops had an arrest warrant, they would not have let the home boundary stop them. how hard is that to understand?

A warrant is not required for conducting an arrest.

 

[Into the Night]

grammar nazi aside, and you've made the case before, if cops have a warrant, they do not need to respect the boundaries of the home, which is what these cops felt compelled to do until the ROOKIE made a mistake. but at least we know you are still a badge blower and bow down to government authority, right or wrong

A warrant is not required to conduct an arrest. Your home will not protect you from an arrest.

Buzzword fallacy. Association fallacy.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No warrant is required to conduct an arrest.

You are not immune from arrest simply because you are in your home.

This is not true, at all. Payton v. New York
1980 Supreme Court case that ruled the Fourth Amendment prohibits the police from making a warrantless, nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home to make a routine felony arrest. The ruling requires police to have an arrest warrant before entering a suspect's home, unless there are exigent circumstances or consent.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

A warrant is not required for conducting an arrest.

read payton v. new york, again.

 

[zymurgy]

murder is not the correct term here.