Nnanji
Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML quote:
ORIGINAL: kdsub In Vince's story they did not identify themselves... but.... I'll bet in the court transcripts they did or did not have a chance to identify themselves before confronted with a gun. If they did not there has been plenty of settled law covering just that circumstance so as usual.... there is more to the story. Butch You are amazing, Butch, in your efforts to excuse the police for wrong doing. They evidently did not even knock. They entered without warning or identification. The most important thing here is that police provocation strips you of your 4th Amendment rights if you defend yourself. I cannot understand how even the liberal Justices went along with that. I should think it is similar to "the fruit of the contaminated tree," if I got that right. Under 4th Amendment cases if evidence is obtained by illegal wiretapping it is bitter evidence. If action is provoked by the police the citizen should be immune. VML, while I agree with your anger over the 4th amendment issue, keep in mind that there is the real world where Mendez and his girlfriend was shot and then there is the legal world where people get to spend years debating what should have happened during the gun battle. If you re-read the links you posted you'll see that the court have a law in place (not going to go back and look up the legal term used) whereby once the resident of the main house gives permission at the main house it includes out buildings. The 9th circuit didn't question that nor did the supremes. I'll refer to an experience in my past. While on a police ride along we (me part of that we being a civilian observer) got a call that a parole violator who was considered armed and dangerous was in a woman's house beating her. My police guy and his Sargent went to the house and effected an entrance, with guns drawn and no warrant. I personally asked my police guy to park his car a few houses away so I wouldn't be in the line of fire from stray bullets when the gun battle happened. That was real world. I had no 4th amendment problems with it either then or now. But, had a gun battle actually ensued, I'm sure pointy headed lawyers would have spent years second guessing what the cops did. So, in this instance, from a distance in time and place, do I have a problem. Well yes, but your OP listed the facts of the case that you wanted discussed. The facts that you presented did not question whether or not the cops had a right to enter an out building once they had permission at the main building. There were plenty of facts to disagree with, yet in the facts you presented that was accepted as legal by everyone via settled law. So get on with it.
|