House to house searches

[captdave77]

How does LE know that the bad guys are not in your house? What if the bad guy was standing around the corner holding a weapon on your loved one to get you to say the right thing?

They don't but it is impossible to prove a negative. It is not my job to prove there is not a bag guy in my house; it is the role of law enforcement to show probable cause.

The only way to make sure there are no meth labs in a given geographic are is to search and meth is very harmful to society. Fugitive searches could use the same justification. It is a very loose standard.

 

[Joab]

It does me no good to argue as we all have a strong opinion on this matter which we are all very entitled to. I think you guys missed my point; I am not shocked though. Just because you and I do not need assistance from LE does not mean the weaker, less armed majority of the population does not. It has nothing to do with YOU and your rights; it has everything to do with being your brothers keeper. How do you protect those who cannot protect themselves by not allowing LE to shrink a search area? LE is there to protect the general public and just because a few of us do not need help does not mean we impeded LE from protecting the greater population.
I am not talking about legality, I am talking about being reasonable and helping all you can in a time a crisis that maybe occurs once every 10 years.
Legally, you are 100% correct; morally, you are bankrupt and 100% wrong. That is all I was saying.

The police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, everyone's personal safety is dependent upon themselves.

Warren v. District of Columbia , Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, DeShaney v. Winnebago County.......

 

[Petro_58]

The police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, everyone's personal safety is dependent upon themselves.

Warren v. District of Columbia , Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, DeShaney v. Winnebago County.......

Correct, most people believe this Myth, that the Police are there to Protect the Citizens, or the Innocent. Even though Most Police Vehicles, have a Motto like "To Protect and Serve", or some catchy Slogan related. BS.

 

[captdave77]

***Stolen from another thread***

Notice how the officers draw on the innocent people and pat them down. This is a little more than a quick look around to make sure the bad guy is not hiding.

 

[Tech Jacket]

...and with text

http://www.infowars.com/shocking-footage-americans-ordered-out-of-homes-at-gunpoint-by-swat-teams/

 

[rOmiLaYu]

How am I safer allowing a search? If I know my home is secure and there is no bad guy under my couch, I don't need help.

I agree...but what about the other guy who does?

I think the issue isn't "statism" it's "selfism." As long as I am fine, I am safe, you're not coming in my house.

 

[captdave77]

I agree...but what about the other guy who does?

I think the issue isn't "statism" it's "selfism." As long as I am fine, I am safe, you're not coming in my house.

I am OK with that. We used to be a country of rugged individualism and our rights were designed to protect the individual against the government.

 

[rOmiLaYu]

I am OK with that. We used to be a country of rugged individualism and our rights were designed to protect the individual against the government.

Rugged individualism need not preclude a desire to see others safe at the expense of our own discomfort. In fact, choosing to be inconvenienced for the greater good might be viewed as noble, no?

 

[captdave77]

Rugged individualism need not preclude a desire to see others safe at the expense of our own discomfort. In fact, choosing to be inconvenienced for the greater good might be viewed as noble, no?

The destruction of the individual's rights is always masked under the veil of greater good.

 

[rOmiLaYu]

The destruction of the individual's rights is always masked under the veil of greater good.

Fair enough, but destruction can't occur with concession. If I choose to disarm, you have not disarmed me.