Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #79 - dapianoman (07/31/2013) [-]
In the united states, there is an official document called the constitution. within that, there are 27 amendments, the first 10 of which are called the bill of rights. in the 4th amendment in the bill of rights, it is stated that police may not enter a house without a warrant or probable cause. so, if they were to uncover a crime in that house, without a warrant or probable cause, that would be a crime in itself. obviously the u.s. is not ruled by criminals even though this is the case.
User avatar #108 to #79 - hhanako (07/31/2013) [-]
"probable cause"

if they were to uncover a crime, that's a probable cause
User avatar #165 to #108 - heartlessrobot (07/31/2013) [-]
Except if they uncover the crime before having probably cause to search the residence or their computer.
User avatar #112 to #108 - dapianoman (07/31/2013) [-]
Nope. Police cannot randomly break into houses without probable cause.
#154 to #112 - cubbythechainsaw (07/31/2013) [-]
Are you autistic? If they have a search warrant, they can look around for it. If they find something else in the process, they have to go get another warrant to take whatever else they found.
User avatar #198 to #154 - dapianoman (07/31/2013) [-]
I am not autistic. In fact, I am not even going to dignify your argument with a rebuttal. Making an argumentum ad hominem will get you nowhere and just makes you look uneducated.
#166 to #154 - anonymous (07/31/2013) [-]
To get a warrant you have to have at minimum probably cause.
User avatar #168 to #166 - cubbythechainsaw (07/31/2013) [-]
Cops can search your house on something as little as personal suspicion.
#172 to #168 - anonymous (07/31/2013) [-]
Which would fall under probable cause.
User avatar #173 to #172 - cubbythechainsaw (07/31/2013) [-]
That's what I was trying to say in the first place. I replied to the wrong one. I meant to reply to #115.
User avatar #115 to #112 - dapianoman (07/31/2013) [-]
And if they did, and they found drugs in your house, then you can sue them for breaking and entering
User avatar #114 to #112 - hhanako (07/31/2013) [-]
what is a "probable cause" then?
User avatar #117 to #114 - dapianoman (07/31/2013) [-]
like if a cop sees you make a drug deal, or if they see you assault someone, etc

or if they smell something like drugs in your house and you act very suspicious (like you are high)
User avatar #119 to #117 - hhanako (07/31/2013) [-]
so if they think you're breaking the law, they can come in.

so basically they can say they had a probable cause, and knock knock, we're busting your door down, ******
#147 to #119 - anonymous (07/31/2013) [-]
You have to be able to prove you had probably cause in court, if a cop just busts down your door it doesn't matter how much illegal **** he finds if he didn't have probable cause you won't go to jail.
User avatar #122 to #119 - dapianoman (07/31/2013) [-]
i dont see what the point of that last sentence was. any person can break your door down. i dont need to be a cop to bust your door.
User avatar #124 to #122 - hhanako (07/31/2013) [-]
yeah, but they're breaking the law doing it. if it's a cop, they can break the door down, say he saw you selling illegal weapons, and then you'r ****** .
User avatar #127 to #124 - dapianoman (07/31/2013) [-]
I can break your door down and say i saw you doing that too. you aren't ****** if a policeman does that. because first of all, you aren't doing illegal things (if you were, you had it coming-you can still sue though). and second, you can refuse him entry into your house.
#101 to #79 - zethyrr (07/31/2013) [-]
How you came to the conclusion that your constitution, which was made over 100 years ago, is somehow relevant to your leaders of today, I will never know. But I would like to know how, when that very constitution is being disassembled systematically by your own government, can you claim that "obviously the u.s is not ruled by criminals even though this is the case"?
User avatar #105 to #101 - dapianoman (07/31/2013) [-]
because, as stated in my previous post, there are 27 amendments in this constitution. Only a part of the constitution was made over 100 years ago. a lot of it was made more recently. the constitution serves as a basis for u.s. laws. it is extremely significant in american government and law. i don't see how " that very constitution is being disassembled systematically by your own government" though. perhaps you would like to enlighten me?
#113 to #105 - zethyrr (07/31/2013) [-]
I'm pretty sure one of the amendments is the right to bear arms, correct? Pretty damn sure I hear a big ass ruckus about them trying to take your guns from you a bit ago, and all those people imprisoned over ******* facebook posts? Totally not an infringement of free speech or anything, oh yeah, and what was that OTHER thing called? the Pay-tree-uht act? (yes, I spelled it that way on purpose, because it's ******* ironic that they'd name it the patriot act when it's the exact opposite of its name)
User avatar #120 to #113 - dapianoman (07/31/2013) [-]
yes, about 200 years ago, the 2nd amendment allowed for people to own arms such as muskets, old shotguns, and maybe handguns. but technology has changed, and such weapons are far more dangerous so this amendment needs some fixing up. however that is not the case for the 4th amendment. the circumstances are largely the same.
#151 to #120 - anonymous (07/31/2013) [-]
The 2nd amendment back in the day also let people own ******* cannons, I don't know about you but i'd say a goddamn cannon is equally or more deadly than an AR-15.
User avatar #197 to #151 - dapianoman (07/31/2013) [-]
A 200 year old cannon is nowhere near the firepower of a fully automatic rifle in close quarters combat
#123 to #120 - zethyrr (07/31/2013) [-]
just saying, you'll wish you had guns still when they go all police state on your ass :/
User avatar #125 to #123 - dapianoman (07/31/2013) [-]
i agree, i would want to have guns were that the case. however, i do not foresee such an event occuring in the future, so this is not a concern for me. personally i would like to reduce the number of firearms in my city because it is getting very dangerous to walk downtown at night for fear of getting shot.
#129 to #125 - zethyrr (07/31/2013) [-]
that's not the guns fault, that's the fault of the person who has it, you take the gun from someone who would use it to harm you, they'll just use something else, taking the guns away from dangerous people does not magically transform them into harmless homebodies, it just means you won't have a gun to shoot the ****** who's running at you with a chefs knife
User avatar #130 to #129 - dapianoman (07/31/2013) [-]
But it's harder for someone to kill 20 people in a school with a knife than a 12 guage.
#133 to #130 - zethyrr (07/31/2013) [-]
Depends on the person, but you do have a valid point, I still personally wouldn't feel comfortable making firearms illegal, that only prevents the law abiding citizens from having them
#116 to #113 - zethyrr (07/31/2013) [-]
 Friends (0)