Boulder woman disturbed to discover police regularly enter unsecured homes

[Broncojohnny]

You clearly don't get it. I'm done with this. You are not understanding the key variable of articulation of facts and the scope of exigent/crime in progress. That case is the precedent and opens avenue for lawful entry.

It is pretty obvious who doesn't "get it" here. The guy who used the word "possibly" to describe something that was "imminent".

Even the Supreme Court case you cited has nothing to do with what you are trying to say. An open window/door is no more an indication of an imminent crime in progress than flowers on the porch. If it was you would be running into every open window you saw, even on your day off. Do you do that?

[Broncojohnny]

I really don't want to get in a pissing match, but the officer could always cite the care taking function.

And that means what in this argument about an "imminent" crime taking place?

Oh yea, it means jack shit. Shut the fuck up, clown. No one cares what you think.

[hustleman]

It is pretty obvious who doesn't "get it" here. The guy who used the word "possibly" to describe something that was "imminent".

Even the Supreme Court case you cited has nothing to do with what you are trying to say. An open window/door is no more an indication of an imminent crime in progress than flowers on the porch. If it was you would be running into every open window you saw, even on your day off. Do you do that?

Apparently u have a very tough time reading. Please defer to my previous post about articulation of facts to imply exigent. Also how exigent is perspective. Man you are so hard headed its ridiculous. As stated previously the cited case is the precedent and different circumstance fall under the umbrella of exigent. Seriously just open your mind to understand what I'm speaking of. I'm not trying to change your mind of your anti-police. Just explaining the reasoning

[davbrucas]

Brigham City v Stuart...

You mad bro!!!

The only thing I'm saying is there are many articulable facts that can be made to make it exigent... Neighbor calling in saying someone entered the locate, multiple burglaries in the area, noises heard, ect... Understand the exigent is a perception not written in stone. So someone can present facts to why they felt is was exigent and argue a case.

With that being said, this JBT stuff is ridiculous. I don't go around tugging on unlocked door knobs to make entry into peoples homes. The only time I enter is if it and open door or window and there are signs of a possible offense. Example ransacked house, damage to door or window. Secondly when I enter the house I am strictly looking for persons, nothing else. I clear the house/apt where people can hide then get out and attempt to make contact with resident. I don't open drawers or cabinets that people can't hide in.

I don't walk around crushing the civil liberties of known criminals so why would I enter a possible victims house to try to drop a case on them. I don't period. Hell I don't even write good folks tickets unless they are absolute assholes.

So don't take my post as me saying police have the absolute right to enter anyones house and dig around to find a bogus case. I am merely advising people as to why/what makes it lawful. I don't participate in that and don't believe any LEOs should do this as a way to violate your civil liberties.

Get out of here with that nonsense...who are we gonna vilify now? We need you to be a JBT so we can vent our frustrations out on you...not a normal guy with a badge.

[hustleman]

Get out of here with that nonsense...who are we gonna vilify now? We need you to be a JBT so we can vent our frustrations out on you...not a normal guy with a badge.

Lol. Totally understandable. Anything to minimize your pain. Hahaha. Fuck everyone's rights. They are abolished as of now

[FastFord19]

Hustleman. Not sure if I've missed it before but where do you work? PM me if needed.

[Forever_frost]

Well if the court upholds it then isn't that the authority to act? What other recourse beside revolution is there?

No, it's not. The recourse is citizens refusing to recognize your authority to violate the constitutional rights of themselves and others. If citizens stood up to governmental agents for natural born rights we wouldn't have had internment or mass genocide. Laws are often created and upheld by government to give themselves more and more power yet you wouldn't stand for a citizen engaging in that same action over you.

[hustleman]

Hustleman. Not sure if I've missed it before but where do you work? PM me if needed.

Arlington

[hustleman]

No, it's not. The recourse is citizens refusing to recognize your authority to violate the constitutional rights of themselves and others. If citizens stood up to governmental agents for natural born rights we wouldn't have had internment or mass genocide. Laws are often created and upheld by government to give themselves more and more power yet you wouldn't stand for a citizen engaging in that same action over you.

I totally understand that but when the final decision is the court system, then it has to be recognized. I know... Truly know that you are a man that can go through the course of life without government involvement. I absolutely respect that and appreciate that. The sad thing is so many others do not match your self-reliability and ask for the govt (police) to intervene in their life. My statements are not there to say you are wrong just a different perspective of why it is considered "lawful"

[Broncojohnny]

Apparently u have a very tough time reading. Please defer to my previous post about articulation of facts to imply exigent. Also how exigent is perspective. Man you are so hard headed its ridiculous. As stated previously the cited case is the precedent and different circumstance fall under the umbrella of exigent. Seriously just open your mind to understand what I'm speaking of. I'm not trying to change your mind of your anti-police. Just explaining the reasoning

I love this. Being pro-facts mean I am anti-police. If I disagree with your "cop logic" then I am anti-police. Is that what they teach you at the police academy? Anyone who doesn't accept your narrow minded assertions must be the enemy?

Exigent circumstances in the case you cited related to the police seeing a crime in progress and taking action. That standard is just a bit higher than seeing an open window don't you think? An open window is not the same as seeing a crime in progress. If it were the same then you would jump through every open window you see, as would I, to prevent a crime.

If you would like to make the case that it only makes sense to "investigate" if you see an open window then make it. That still doesn't mean there is some exigent circumstance that gives you the right to enter private homes. That is absurdity and I'll call bullshit on it all day long.

[03trubluGT]

And that means what in this argument about an "imminent" crime taking place?

Oh yea, it means jack shit. Shut the fuck up, clown. No one cares what you think.

Did I say it was directly related?

I'm just adding info.

No need to get so angry there, Alan.....

[Baron Von Crowder]

Arlington

south?

[Broncojohnny]

Did I say it was directly related?

I'm just adding info.

No need to get so angry there, Alan.....

Oh here we go with everyone being angry. Such a tired bit. Get new material.

[03trubluGT]

Oh here we go with everyone being angry. Such a tired bit. Get new material.

You are acting like a bitch. Either you are angry, or on your period.

Which one is it?

[Forever_frost]

I totally understand that but when the final decision is the court system, then it has to be recognized. I know... Truly know that you are a man that can go through the course of life without government involvement. I absolutely respect that and appreciate that. The sad thing is so many others do not match your self-reliability and ask for the govt (police) to intervene in their life. My statements are not there to say you are wrong just a different perspective of why it is considered "lawful"

But that's the point. The final decision isn't the courts. It lies with the people. The people are capable of nullifying any law in court by jury nullification. What cops do not want to hear is that they need to be held to the higher standard because of the authority they wield and since you do not have cops telling on each other to weed out the bad ones, they are all polluted with the bad ones. The belief that there is any reason outside of you witnessing a burglary or hear screams, that you can enter someone's home without warrant is one of many problems. You wouldn't want me walking through your home because you either didn't close your door, or you didn't close it well.

If you come home and I'm walking through it, are you going to be okay with the explanation of "Your door was open so I thought I'd check things out?"