What's the legal justification for searching their phones at all? If I punch you in the face, can the police get a search warrant to search my house? What does rioting and destruction of property have to do with your personal information and communications? Searching the phone sounds like an unreasonable search and taking it in the first place seems like an unreasonable seizure. They caught these guys red handed and have all the evidence they need to get convictions. That should be enough.
Presumably the argument will be that they are trying to find evidence for someone "inciting a riot" but they should be able to solve that part of the case with old fashioned interrogation and deal-making with the hundreds of people they arrested.
Yes. It is called hard evidence. If you punch someone in face you go to jail. You are lucky that you just go to jail.... some of us are licensed to carry in many states and that may end-up quite differently including search of phones. So let's stop at that.
Yes. A death sentence for throwing a punch. Red America. And red in more ways than one.
That is a strawman. If a person throws a punch at you, how do you know what his intentions will be AFTER that punch? Does he wanna throw some more punches and then finish you with a knife, or would one punch be enough? You dont know, but he has already attacked you, so it is reasonable to assume that person wants you dead or injured. When you throw a punch at a person, you have just given that person a right to use deadly force, if he can prove later, that it was reasonable for him to think he was in danger. I like that every person has the right to defend himself. Sure, responding with a gun to a fist fight might be an overkill ( no pun intended) but a person with a gun was not the one who had the option of choosing if he wants to start the violence or not.
Besides, if you don't wanna get killed for throwing a punch, DONT THROW PUNCHES without a good reason. That might help to pass throw Darwin filter, you know. Just saying....
A major common law case on this issue provides the following rule: "When a person has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact actually believe", that danger of his being killed, or of receiving great bodily harm, is immanent, he may act on such appearances and defend himself, even to the extent of taking human life when necessary, although it may turn out that the appearances were false, or although he may have been mistaken as to the extent of the real actual danger." (emphasis mine)
"
Another strawman. That person is scared for his life. That is what "When a person has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact actually believe" actually means.
Do you even know what a straw man is? Here's a hint: it's not citing the relevant law verbatim.
Gunner's "knock out punch" example, is a good example of where legal force could be (probably) justified. You're on the ground with an assailant looming over you. Deadly force might be your only option. However, in most circumstances a punch in the face without other extraordinary circumstances would not. Yes, you might be in fear for your life, but the lethal force has to be "necessary" as well.
What's the legal justification for searching their phones at all? If I punch you in the face, can the police get a search warrant to search my house? What does rioting and destruction of property have to do with your personal information and communications? Searching the phone sounds like an unreasonable search and taking it in the first place seems like an unreasonable seizure. They caught these guys red handed and have all the evidence they need to get convictions. That should be enough.
Presumably the argument will be that they are trying to find evidence for someone "inciting a riot" but they should be able to solve that part of the case with old fashioned interrogation and deal-making with the hundreds of people they arrested.
Yes. It is called hard evidence. If you punch someone in face you go to jail. You are lucky that you just go to jail.... some of us are licensed to carry in many states and that may end-up quite differently including search of phones. So let's stop at that.
Yes. A death sentence for throwing a punch. Red America. And red in more ways than one.
That is a strawman. If a person throws a punch at you, how do you know what his intentions will be AFTER that punch? Does he wanna throw some more punches and then finish you with a knife, or would one punch be enough? You dont know, but he has already attacked you, so it is reasonable to assume that person wants you dead or injured. When you throw a punch at a person, you have just given that person a right to use deadly force, if he can prove later, that it was reasonable for him to think he was in danger. I like that every person has the right to defend himself. Sure, responding with a gun to a fist fight might be an overkill ( no pun intended) but a person with a gun was not the one who had the option of choosing if he wants to start the violence or not.
Besides, if you don't wanna get killed for throwing a punch, DONT THROW PUNCHES without a good reason. That might help to pass throw Darwin filter, you know. Just saying....
um, Anton, you are the one proposing a straw man argument. the number of fist fights is exponentially higher than the number of murders, so it is quite unreasonable to assume the person wants you dead.
going straight from a punch to death?!? i hope that is hyperbole.
I think it is interesting that all the BS around the San Bernardino phone and wanting Apple to unlock it for them. Now all they need is a week or so to unlock hundreds of phones. Nice to see that they are getting better at technology. This is just your government out of control. Because after all who is going to stop them.
They also talk a lot of shit. I don't expect any iOS8+ device with secure enclave to be breakable.
What's the legal justification for searching their phones at all? If I punch you in the face, can the police get a search warrant to search my house? What does rioting and destruction of property have to do with your personal information and communications? Searching the phone sounds like an unreasonable search and taking it in the first place seems like an unreasonable seizure. They caught these guys red handed and have all the evidence they need to get convictions. That should be enough.
Presumably the argument will be that they are trying to find evidence for someone "inciting a riot" but they should be able to solve that part of the case with old fashioned interrogation and deal-making with the hundreds of people they arrested.
Yes. It is called hard evidence. If you punch someone in face you go to jail. You are lucky that you just go to jail.... some of us are licensed to carry in many states and that may end-up quite differently including search of phones. So let's stop at that.
Yes. A death sentence for throwing a punch. Red America. And red in more ways than one.
That is a strawman. If a person throws a punch at you, how do you know what his intentions will be AFTER that punch? Does he wanna throw some more punches and then finish you with a knife, or would one punch be enough? You dont know, but he has already attacked you, so it is reasonable to assume that person wants you dead or injured. When you throw a punch at a person, you have just given that person a right to use deadly force, if he can prove later, that it was reasonable for him to think he was in danger. I like that every person has the right to defend himself. Sure, responding with a gun to a fist fight might be an overkill ( no pun intended) but a person with a gun was not the one who had the option of choosing if he wants to start the violence or not.
Besides, if you don't wanna get killed for throwing a punch, DONT THROW PUNCHES without a good reason. That might help to pass throw Darwin filter, you know. Just saying....
Shooting people because they throw a punch is not a straw man. Only a psychopath would think that! And the way you know is by seeing what happens next. Interesting that you added "without a good reason" this time but not sure that you are a reasonable person and probably should not be given a conceal carry permit in the first place. We need less incidents like this, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/10/judge-rejects-stand-your-ground-defense-in-florida-theater-shooting-case.amp.html not more!
Moving from shooting people because you don't know their intentions to the actual article, the recent release by Wikileaks shows that it will be difficult if not impossible to secure any sort of backdoor to Apple devices. If you put in a door, someone will find it.
What's the legal justification for searching their phones at all? If I punch you in the face, can the police get a search warrant to search my house? What does rioting and destruction of property have to do with your personal information and communications? Searching the phone sounds like an unreasonable search and taking it in the first place seems like an unreasonable seizure. They caught these guys red handed and have all the evidence they need to get convictions. That should be enough.
Presumably the argument will be that they are trying to find evidence for someone "inciting a riot" but they should be able to solve that part of the case with old fashioned interrogation and deal-making with the hundreds of people they arrested.
Yes. It is called hard evidence. If you punch someone in face you go to jail. You are lucky that you just go to jail.... some of us are licensed to carry in many states and that may end-up quite differently including search of phones. So let's stop at that.
Yes. A death sentence for throwing a punch. Red America. And red in more ways than one.
That is a strawman. If a person throws a punch at you, how do you know what his intentions will be AFTER that punch? Does he wanna throw some more punches and then finish you with a knife, or would one punch be enough? You dont know, but he has already attacked you, so it is reasonable to assume that person wants you dead or injured. When you throw a punch at a person, you have just given that person a right to use deadly force, if he can prove later, that it was reasonable for him to think he was in danger. I like that every person has the right to defend himself. Sure, responding with a gun to a fist fight might be an overkill ( no pun intended) but a person with a gun was not the one who had the option of choosing if he wants to start the violence or not.
Besides, if you don't wanna get killed for throwing a punch, DONT THROW PUNCHES without a good reason. That might help to pass throw Darwin filter, you know. Just saying....
um, Anton, you are the one proposing a straw man argument. the number of fist fights is exponentially higher than the number of murders, so it is quite unreasonable to assume the person wants you dead.
going straight from a punch to death?!? i hope that is hyperbole.
Really? Tell that to those who were walking down the street and were killed with a single punch. Yeah, oh the irony, cause they were killed by going from a punch to death in an instance.
What's the legal justification for searching their phones at all? If I punch you in the face, can the police get a search warrant to search my house? What does rioting and destruction of property have to do with your personal information and communications? Searching the phone sounds like an unreasonable search and taking it in the first place seems like an unreasonable seizure. They caught these guys red handed and have all the evidence they need to get convictions. That should be enough.
Presumably the argument will be that they are trying to find evidence for someone "inciting a riot" but they should be able to solve that part of the case with old fashioned interrogation and deal-making with the hundreds of people they arrested.
Yes. It is called hard evidence. If you punch someone in face you go to jail. You are lucky that you just go to jail.... some of us are licensed to carry in many states and that may end-up quite differently including search of phones. So let's stop at that.
Yes. A death sentence for throwing a punch. Red America. And red in more ways than one.
That is a strawman. If a person throws a punch at you, how do you know what his intentions will be AFTER that punch? Does he wanna throw some more punches and then finish you with a knife, or would one punch be enough? You dont know, but he has already attacked you, so it is reasonable to assume that person wants you dead or injured. When you throw a punch at a person, you have just given that person a right to use deadly force, if he can prove later, that it was reasonable for him to think he was in danger. I like that every person has the right to defend himself. Sure, responding with a gun to a fist fight might be an overkill ( no pun intended) but a person with a gun was not the one who had the option of choosing if he wants to start the violence or not.
Besides, if you don't wanna get killed for throwing a punch, DONT THROW PUNCHES without a good reason. That might help to pass throw Darwin filter, you know. Just saying....
Shooting people because they throw a punch is not a straw man. Only a psychopath would think that! And the way you know is by seeing what happens next. Interesting that you added "without a good reason" this time but not sure that you are a reasonable person and probably should not be given a conceal carry permit in the first place. We need less incidents like this, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/10/judge-rejects-stand-your-ground-defense-in-florida-theater-shooting-case.amp.html not more!
Moving from shooting people because you don't know their intentions to the actual article, the recent release by Wikileaks shows that it will be difficult if not impossible to secure any sort of backdoor to Apple devices. If you put in a door, someone will find it.
What? I wasnt arguejng against backdoors. I simply stated that throwing a punch is a threat and the law gives you that right to use deadly force when it is reasonable to asaume you will be killed or injured. In that case all concerns about wellbeing of an attacker are OFF the table. That is his problem. Since when attacking people unreasonalby become a small and unimportant thing, but a responce to that attack and attempt to protect your well-being is not? Do you live in Russia or something? It is that type of country, when you show up at the police station with a report of someone trying to attack you, and they will tell you that you can only report AFTER the attack actually happened and if it was successful. Threats do not count. Same logic - you cant defend yourself if you are not sure the guy was only trying to throw one punch or many. With what force he was trying to throw those punches and for how long - you dont know anything therefore, you have no right to defend yourself. Brilliant.
In what f-ng lalaland you need to be living to think that that would be better than shooting the attacker? Forgot to tell, I dont even own a gun.
What's the legal justification for searching their phones at all? If I punch you in the face, can the police get a search warrant to search my house? What does rioting and destruction of property have to do with your personal information and communications? Searching the phone sounds like an unreasonable search and taking it in the first place seems like an unreasonable seizure. They caught these guys red handed and have all the evidence they need to get convictions. That should be enough.
Presumably the argument will be that they are trying to find evidence for someone "inciting a riot" but they should be able to solve that part of the case with old fashioned interrogation and deal-making with the hundreds of people they arrested.
Yes. It is called hard evidence. If you punch someone in face you go to jail. You are lucky that you just go to jail.... some of us are licensed to carry in many states and that may end-up quite differently including search of phones. So let's stop at that.
Yes. A death sentence for throwing a punch. Red America. And red in more ways than one.
That is a strawman. If a person throws a punch at you, how do you know what his intentions will be AFTER that punch? Does he wanna throw some more punches and then finish you with a knife, or would one punch be enough? You dont know, but he has already attacked you, so it is reasonable to assume that person wants you dead or injured. When you throw a punch at a person, you have just given that person a right to use deadly force, if he can prove later, that it was reasonable for him to think he was in danger. I like that every person has the right to defend himself. Sure, responding with a gun to a fist fight might be an overkill ( no pun intended) but a person with a gun was not the one who had the option of choosing if he wants to start the violence or not.
Besides, if you don't wanna get killed for throwing a punch, DONT THROW PUNCHES without a good reason. That might help to pass throw Darwin filter, you know. Just saying....
Shooting people because they throw a punch is not a straw man. Only a psychopath would think that!
Just to clarify, you are saying that defending yourself is considered psychopathis behaviour? I really hope I misunderstood you.
What's the legal justification for searching their phones at all? If I punch you in the face, can the police get a search warrant to search my house? What does rioting and destruction of property have to do with your personal information and communications? Searching the phone sounds like an unreasonable search and taking it in the first place seems like an unreasonable seizure. They caught these guys red handed and have all the evidence they need to get convictions. That should be enough.
Presumably the argument will be that they are trying to find evidence for someone "inciting a riot" but they should be able to solve that part of the case with old fashioned interrogation and deal-making with the hundreds of people they arrested.
Yes. It is called hard evidence. If you punch someone in face you go to jail. You are lucky that you just go to jail.... some of us are licensed to carry in many states and that may end-up quite differently including search of phones. So let's stop at that.
So it sounds like if you punch maciekskontakt in the nose you will get shot. Good to know. Interesting to know that he/she considers a nose punch equal force to blowing your brains out with a hand gun. No problem in this country we all love each other and care about each other. Just don't cross me or you will regret it with your life.
You do realize you can kill someone hitting them in the head. A good friend of mine was killed that way. He died from a brain hemorrhage. People have the right to defend themselves in this country and that includes using firearms in self defense. I hope I'm never in that situation, but if someone were to start hitting me, they will get shot.
What's the legal justification for searching their phones at all? If I punch you in the face, can the police get a search warrant to search my house? What does rioting and destruction of property have to do with your personal information and communications? Searching the phone sounds like an unreasonable search and taking it in the first place seems like an unreasonable seizure. They caught these guys red handed and have all the evidence they need to get convictions. That should be enough.
Presumably the argument will be that they are trying to find evidence for someone "inciting a riot" but they should be able to solve that part of the case with old fashioned interrogation and deal-making with the hundreds of people they arrested.
Well, when you are arrested for felony rioting, police have legal justification to get a search warrant and look at the content on the phones they seized. Even if they caught them red handed, the police need to collect all the evidence possible before they hand the case over to the district attorney's office.
LOL. Lest ye forget, 'twas the previous administration that was revealed as having massive illegal wiretapping and data collection operations in place.
That's right! I do remember hearing that on Fox News. Thank you for reminding us of this. Now we can all question and doubt anything that is said thanks to the con man in the WH. There is no truth to anything because we call what is unquestionably the truth a lie. Anything goes. The truth is a thing of the past. Welcome to the Trump Amerika.
You didn't hear it from Fox News, you heard it from Ed Snowden and Wikileaks, buddy.
No I heard it on Fox News. The WikiLeaks thing is just an alternative fact that you are giving. Or maybe Fox news is an alternative fact. Maybe there never was any wiretapping. Now that I think of it I heard there was no wire tapping. Wait, no I am wrong it was George W. that ordered the wiretapping. Yes he had a meeting with the Russians and then ordered the wire tapping. I also heard it was the Chinese. Actually it was Dick Cheney who did it. He still has a secret office in the WH where he reviews all the data that comes in. By they way this is the best forum comment you will ever see. It's yuge!
What's the legal justification for searching their phones at all? If I punch you in the face, can the police get a search warrant to search my house? What does rioting and destruction of property have to do with your personal information and communications? Searching the phone sounds like an unreasonable search and taking it in the first place seems like an unreasonable seizure. They caught these guys red handed and have all the evidence they need to get convictions. That should be enough.
Presumably the argument will be that they are trying to find evidence for someone "inciting a riot" but they should be able to solve that part of the case with old fashioned interrogation and deal-making with the hundreds of people they arrested.
My best guess is that they are looking for evidence of collusion, and whether there are any identifiable unindicted co-conspirators. If there turns out to be evidence of collusion, then additional charges would be forthcoming.
Let's say you punch me in the face and are immediately arrested. Then law enforcement search your home and it turns out that you planned to first disorient me with the punch and then push me in front of a bus or train that you knew the schedule of. Then they would add assault with intent and attempted murder to the charges. If they merely arrested you and prosecuted you for simple assault and battery, then the larger crime would go unprosecuted.
As for whether police can get a search warranty to search your home if you commit assault and battery outside your home, the answer is yes, they can, as they have probable cause to believe you committed a crime, and there might be evidence that you planned the assault and battery, rather than it being a "crime of passion".
The legal justification in this case is that there is probable cause to believe the arrested parties committed a crime, and that is all the legal justification required for a search warrant. Whether that level of justification is reasonable or not in a broader context than merely legal justification is something up for debate; but you asked about legal justification, and it simply comes down to whether or not there is probable cause.
Thanks for the informed response. I assume (hope) that the context around the hypothetical face punch determines whether a home search is reasonable. Presumably it would depend on the judge as well. I would hope that if you and I got into a scuffle at, say, a concert and blows were exchanged, the police wouldn't get warrants to search our homes and phones, but who knows. Fortunately police are undoubtedly too busy to do home searches in frivolous cases, but checking phones is quick and easy (and just as invasive).
Generally speaking getting a search warrant requires that there is probable cause to believe that evidence might be found as a result of a search.
Fourth Amendment law recognizes a number of exceptions to general rules, so I don't mean to make a blanket assertion. But for the most part, in order to get a search warrant, it's not enough that there's probable cause to believe that someone has committed a crime. An officer wouldn't necessarily, e.g., be able to get a search warrant to search your home if they (justifiably) arrested you for drunk driving. There would need to be probable cause to believe there was evidence in your home relating to the crime. They would, incident to a lawful arrest, be allowed to search you (i.e. even without a warrant). But they wouldn't be allowed to go on a fishing expedition and search anywhere they wanted just because they, with probable cause, believed that you had committed a crime.
And, to be clear, the incident-to-arrest exception for warrantless searches does not give officers the right to, without warrants, search the contents of smartphones found in arrestees' possession. The Supreme Court decided that issue in Riley v California (2014).
I think it is interesting that all the BS around the San Bernardino phone and wanting Apple to unlock it for them. Now all they need is a week or so to unlock hundreds of phones. Nice to see that they are getting better at technology. This is just your government out of control. Because after all who is going to stop them.
LOL. Lest ye forget, 'twas the previous administration that was revealed as having massive illegal wiretapping and data collection operations in place.
That's right! I do remember hearing that on Fox News. Thank you for reminding us of this. Now we can all question and doubt anything that is said thanks to the con man in the WH. There is no truth to anything because we call what is unquestionably the truth a lie. Anything goes. The truth is a thing of the past. Welcome to the Trump Amerika.
The problem with what spammy boy (who basically suck the tit of Trump in every post) just said is that this was authorized using the patriots act DURING THE FUCKING BUSH YEARS and people from both parties on the intel commitees basically knew about the whole thing all the time (even the one that exceeded the mandate). The NSA went a bit beyond its authorized mandate, but most of the gathering of info was in fact authorized and no surprise at all. Notice what came out of the bipartisan intel committees at the time, they sure didn't look like they were surprised.... They were "surprised" in the same way "Captain Renault as surprised gambling was going on in his establishment... while cashing in his chips at the same time.
That's why all in all, what Snowden revealed was a big meh to someone who actully knew about the patriots act.
That Obama didn't stop it, you can fault it, but in no fracking way is this all on the Obama's fracking administration.
I think it is interesting that all the BS around the San Bernardino phone and wanting Apple to unlock it for them. Now all they need is a week or so to unlock hundreds of phones. Nice to see that they are getting better at technology. This is just your government out of control. Because after all who is going to stop them.
They only needed a week for San Bernardino too.
So what you are saying is that the weeks of Apple and the FBI going back and forth on getting the phone unlocked was just "fake news". They never needed Apple to unlock the phone and they were just feeding BS to the world.
LOL. Lest ye forget, 'twas the previous administration that was revealed as having massive illegal wiretapping and data collection operations in place.
That's right! I do remember hearing that on Fox News. Thank you for reminding us of this. Now we can all question and doubt anything that is said thanks to the con man in the WH. There is no truth to anything because we call what is unquestionably the truth a lie. Anything goes. The truth is a thing of the past. Welcome to the Trump Amerika.
You didn't hear it from Fox News, you heard it from Ed Snowden and Wikileaks, buddy.
No I heard it on Fox News. The WikiLeaks thing is just an alternative fact that you are giving. Or maybe Fox news is an alternative fact. Maybe there never was any wiretapping. Now that I think of it I heard there was no wire tapping. Wait, no I am wrong it was George W. that ordered the wiretapping. Yes he had a meeting with the Russians and then ordered the wire tapping. I also heard it was the Chinese. Actually it was Dick Cheney who did it. He still has a secret office in the WH where he reviews all the data that comes in. By they way this is the best forum comment you will ever see. It's yuge!
You're not incoherent enough, try harder for T feel....
What's the legal justification for searching their phones at all? If I punch you in the face, can the police get a search warrant to search my house? What does rioting and destruction of property have to do with your personal information and communications? Searching the phone sounds like an unreasonable search and taking it in the first place seems like an unreasonable seizure. They caught these guys red handed and have all the evidence they need to get convictions. That should be enough.
Presumably the argument will be that they are trying to find evidence for someone "inciting a riot" but they should be able to solve that part of the case with old fashioned interrogation and deal-making with the hundreds of people they arrested.
Yes. It is called hard evidence. If you punch someone in face you go to jail. You are lucky that you just go to jail.... some of us are licensed to carry in many states and that may end-up quite differently including search of phones. So let's stop at that.
So it sounds like if you punch maciekskontakt in the nose you will get shot. Good to know. Interesting to know that he/she considers a nose punch equal force to blowing your brains out with a hand gun. No problem in this country we all love each other and care about each other. Just don't cross me or you will regret it with your life.
Interesting to note, at least as it has been explained to me, that in most cases a physical attack is not cause enough to shoot anyone, let alone kill them. You have to prove you life was undeniably in danger and you absolutely had no other choice. Unless they too are carrying a weapon like a knife or a gun, you will have trouble justifying your decision to escalate the conflict. "Punch me in the face and I'll just shoot you because I have a carry permit" is a ridiculous myth. A carry permit give you no authority what so ever.
What's the legal justification for searching their phones at all? If I punch you in the face, can the police get a search warrant to search my house? What does rioting and destruction of property have to do with your personal information and communications? Searching the phone sounds like an unreasonable search and taking it in the first place seems like an unreasonable seizure. They caught these guys red handed and have all the evidence they need to get convictions. That should be enough.
Presumably the argument will be that they are trying to find evidence for someone "inciting a riot" but they should be able to solve that part of the case with old fashioned interrogation and deal-making with the hundreds of people they arrested.
This was my first thought!! The cell phones mean nothing here so why probe them? I suspect law enforcement is trying to force a legal ruling in their favor. It would be hilarious if these cases got dismissed due to illegal search and seizures.
Like you said caught red handed, they should be tired convicted and then thrown away for 40 years.
What's the legal justification for searching their phones at all? If I punch you in the face, can the police get a search warrant to search my house? What does rioting and destruction of property have to do with your personal information and communications? Searching the phone sounds like an unreasonable search and taking it in the first place seems like an unreasonable seizure. They caught these guys red handed and have all the evidence they need to get convictions. That should be enough.
Presumably the argument will be that they are trying to find evidence for someone "inciting a riot" but they should be able to solve that part of the case with old fashioned interrogation and deal-making with the hundreds of people they arrested.
Yes. It is called hard evidence. If you punch someone in face you go to jail. You are lucky that you just go to jail.... some of us are licensed to carry in many states and that may end-up quite differently including search of phones. So let's stop at that.
Yes. A death sentence for throwing a punch. Red America. And red in more ways than one.
Yes, that is how you keep the scum down, make them realize that their lives are on the line. The fact is America has far less petty crime than many countries and for good reason, dead criminals don't repeat offenses.
What's the legal justification for searching their phones at all? If I punch you in the face, can the police get a search warrant to search my house? What does rioting and destruction of property have to do with your personal information and communications? Searching the phone sounds like an unreasonable search and taking it in the first place seems like an unreasonable seizure. They caught these guys red handed and have all the evidence they need to get convictions. That should be enough.
Presumably the argument will be that they are trying to find evidence for someone "inciting a riot" but they should be able to solve that part of the case with old fashioned interrogation and deal-making with the hundreds of people they arrested.
Yes. It is called hard evidence. If you punch someone in face you go to jail. You are lucky that you just go to jail.... some of us are licensed to carry in many states and that may end-up quite differently including search of phones. So let's stop at that.
Yes. A death sentence for throwing a punch. Red America. And red in more ways than one.
Yes, that is how you keep the scum down, make them realize that their lives are on the line. The fact is America has far less petty crime than many countries and for good reason, dead criminals don't repeat offenses.
Give me a break buddy produce proof of the shit you just said or STFU. You just dribble lies like there's no tomorrow and don't give a hoot about actual facts just like your sad sack lying "hero" (sic president Trump.
Comments
Do you even know what a straw man is? Here's a hint: it's not citing the relevant law verbatim.
Gunner's "knock out punch" example, is a good example of where legal force could be (probably) justified. You're on the ground with an assailant looming over you. Deadly force might be your only option. However, in most circumstances a punch in the face without other extraordinary circumstances would not. Yes, you might be in fear for your life, but the lethal force has to be "necessary" as well.
the number of fist fights is exponentially higher than the number of murders, so it is quite unreasonable to assume the person wants you dead.
going straight from a punch to death?!? i hope that is hyperbole.
not more!
Moving from shooting people because you don't know their intentions to the actual article, the recent release by Wikileaks shows that it will be difficult if not impossible to secure any sort of backdoor to Apple devices. If you put in a door, someone will find it.
Update: After posting this I found this:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/opinion/a-stand-your-ground-expansion-that-expands-inequality.html
No doubt some would call it "fake news" but it is a good start at exploring the issue of stand your ground and shooting people.
Tell that to those who were walking down the street and were killed with a single punch.
Yeah, oh the irony, cause they were killed by going from a punch to death in an instance.
What? I wasnt arguejng against backdoors.
I simply stated that throwing a punch is a threat and the law gives you that right to use deadly force when it is reasonable to asaume you will be killed or injured. In that case all concerns about wellbeing of an attacker are OFF the table. That is his problem.
Since when attacking people unreasonalby become a small and unimportant thing, but a responce to that attack and attempt to protect your well-being is not? Do you live in Russia or something? It is that type of country, when you show up at the police station with a report of someone trying to attack you, and they will tell you that you can only report AFTER the attack actually happened and if it was successful. Threats do not count.
Same logic - you cant defend yourself if you are not sure the guy was only trying to throw one punch or many. With what force he was trying to throw those punches and for how long - you dont know anything therefore, you have no right to defend yourself. Brilliant.
In what f-ng lalaland you need to be living to think that that would be better than shooting the attacker?
Forgot to tell, I dont even own a gun.
Fourth Amendment law recognizes a number of exceptions to general rules, so I don't mean to make a blanket assertion. But for the most part, in order to get a search warrant, it's not enough that there's probable cause to believe that someone has committed a crime. An officer wouldn't necessarily, e.g., be able to get a search warrant to search your home if they (justifiably) arrested you for drunk driving. There would need to be probable cause to believe there was evidence in your home relating to the crime. They would, incident to a lawful arrest, be allowed to search you (i.e. even without a warrant). But they wouldn't be allowed to go on a fishing expedition and search anywhere they wanted just because they, with probable cause, believed that you had committed a crime.
And, to be clear, the incident-to-arrest exception for warrantless searches does not give officers the right to, without warrants, search the contents of smartphones found in arrestees' possession. The Supreme Court decided that issue in Riley v California (2014).
That's why all in all, what Snowden revealed was a big meh to someone who actully knew about the patriots act.
That Obama didn't stop it, you can fault it, but in no fracking way is this all on the Obama's fracking administration.
Only in alternate fact land is that the case.
Like you said caught red handed, they should be tired convicted and then thrown away for 40 years.
Yes, that is how you keep the scum down, make them realize that their lives are on the line. The fact is America has far less petty crime than many countries and for good reason, dead criminals don't repeat offenses.