The Conservative - Liberal Debate Thread

[TCPluto]

Charade nails it - there are National Security equivalents to "hearing screaming and shooting".

You just can't accept that.

Absolutely corrrect, each case will be fact specific.

 

[TCPluto]

That's where you're wrong. I can accept it-I just don't want the decision made in a vacuum. I want someone besides the Oval Office involved to insure that an emergency is really a danger to the country, and not a danger to the administration's power. I would think all Americans would want that.

These actions are taking place by federal law enforcement agents, not being approved by the white house.

 

[eclectics]

If *this* president or any other president actually does that and not use those extended powers to just prevent terrorist attacks on us, I will stand by you and be just as upset and demand justice.

You seem to be upset about the potential for abuse. I'm not because I hope they wouldn't get away with it. That's where we differ in opinion.

Hope? So it's okay for someone to try because you hope someone will catch it???? Power is very addicting and it's very termpting to abuse it. That's why it's simply logical to put at least some safeguards in place.

 

[Chloe'sMom]

You're quite wrong about this.

Evidence?

 

[Charade]

Hope? So it's okay for someone to try because you hope someone will catch it???? Power is very addicting and it's very termpting to abuse it. That's why it's simply logical to put at least some safeguards in place.

Not what I meant at all. People break the law all the time. And most of the time we catch (when we catch) them after the fact.

Have you seen the movie "Minority Report"?

 

[connorlevismom]

So legal foreigners here, while having to obey our laws, would not be protected by our Constitution? Is that what you are proposing?


On second thought, forget it. Anyone who can make such a statement isn't going to get the time of day from me.

Kind of OT but I think it is pretty rude to take a post that someone made on a totally different thread and post it here. You can post a link but I think it is pretty low to cut and paste the post.

Kristine

 

[TCPluto]

Evidence?

There are many more way that a warrantless search is justified and acceptable.

 

[Chloe'sMom]

There are many more way that a warrantless search is justified and acceptable.

And what are those?

 

[Chloe'sMom]

Kind of OT but I think it is pretty rude to take a post that someone made on a totally different thread and post it here. You can post a link but I think it is pretty low to cut and paste the post.

Kristine

We are disrespectful if we comment on it on the thread they posted it on. So which would you prefer - copy and paste to this thread or talk about it in the other thread?

Which way is less disrespectful in everyone's eyes?

~Amanda

 

[TCPluto]

And what are those?

Any situation which meets the standard of probable cause and exigent circumstances. Use your imagination.

 

[Chloe'sMom]

Any situation which meets the standard of probable cause and exigent circumstances. Use your imagination.

You are the one express knowledge on this topic - I am only asking you to provide the information that I don't have.

You love to tell people they are wrong yet provide no substance to your statement. I dont think it is unfair to ask you to please explain why a person may or may not be wrong.

~Amanda

 

[TCPluto]

We are disrespectful if we comment on it on the thread they posted it on. So which would you prefer - copy and paste to this thread or talk about it in the other thread?

Which way is less disrespectful in everyone's eyes?

~Amanda

Here's an idea. State that you are taking it from another thread AND include the information that precipitated it, so it's not taken out of context.

Or, bring the issue up that precipitated it on this thread, to illicit the conversation.

 

[connorlevismom]

We are disrespectful if we comment on it on the thread they posted it on. So which would you prefer - copy and paste to this thread or talk about it in the other thread?

Which way is less disrespectful in everyone's eyes?

~Amanda

It less disrespectful to address it in the thread it was posted in. That is my opinion anyway. It don't agree with copying and posting into different threads.



Kristine

 

[TCPluto]

You are the one express knowledge on this topic - I am only asking you to provide the information that I don't have. You love to tell people they are wrong yet provide no substance to your statement. I dont think it is unfair to ask you to please explain why a person may or may not be wrong.

~Amanda

Once you understand the concept of exigent circumstances, the fact scenarios are endless.

 

[Chloe'sMom]

Any situation which meets the standard of probable cause and exigent circumstances. Use your imagination.

An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction or a suspect will escape.

Generally, an emergency, a pressing necessity, or a set of circumstances requiring immediate attention or swift action. In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstances means:

An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.
People v. Ramey, 545 P.2d 1333,1341 (Cal. 1976).

Sounds pretty similiar to what Fits said - so why is she suddenly wrong?

~Amanda

 

[Chloe'sMom]

Once you understand the concept of exigent circumstances, the fact scenarios are endless.

So you don't have an answer. Why don' t you just say that

 

[TCPluto]

An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction or a suspect will escape.

Generally, an emergency, a pressing necessity, or a set of circumstances requiring immediate attention or swift action. In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstances means:

An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.
People v. Ramey, 545 P.2d 1333,1341 (Cal. 1976).

Sounds pretty similiar to what Fits said - so why is she suddenly wrong?

~Amanda

She wasn't wrong, she did however, limit the instances to just a few circumstances, which is incorrect.

 

[TCPluto]

So you don't have an answer. Why don' t you just say that

Huh?? Sorry for you...

 

[Chloe'sMom]

She wasn't wrong, she did however, limit the instances to just a few circumstances, which is incorrect.

You said she was wrong. Actually you said:

You're quite wrong about this.

So which is it - is she wrong or is she only sorta wrong? And again - please give another example where her theory would be wrong.

~Amanda

 

[TCPluto]

You said she was wrong. Actually you said:


So which is it - is she wrong or is she only sorta wrong? And again - please give another example where her theory would be wrong.

~Amanda

She implied that her examples were all inclusive, they are not. Do you understand now?