Is the third amendment under attack??

cops investigating a domestic violence call have no idea whats going on behind that locked door and have every intention of protecting themselves as well as anyone in trouble behind the locked door ... they have every right to gain access through whatever means to do their job. Originally Posted by CJ7

Did you even read the OP? The domestic violence was in a neighbor's house, not the house they unlawfully barged into. They wanted to occupy the house next door for a "tactical advantage". The homeowner refused and was well within his legal rights to do so. So the police come banging on his door and break it down. Did they have a warrant? No, they didn't. How anyone can defend the police action in this case is beyond me. This is still the land of the free and a man's house is still his castle!

I still contend if the idiot would have opened the door when the cops wanted in none of this shit would have happened

what the cops should have done was first call the guy to let him know what was going on ........oh wait, they did that

cops investigating a domestic violence call have no idea whats going on behind that locked door and have every intention of protecting themselves as well as anyone in trouble behind the locked door ... they have every right to gain access through whatever means to do their job. Originally Posted by CJ7

Police Officers are permitted to use force to enter a home if they have obvious reason to believe that a person or persons are in great peril, such as if they hear screams for help, a violent encounter is in progress, objects being thrown such as glass or furniture, or shots have been fired or have been reported. I don't think this was the case in this incident. Not all domestic incidents require forcible entry. So when the police take a door off it's hinges without a warrant they better have good reason to do so.

Police Officers are permitted to use force to enter a home if they have obvious reason to believe that a person or persons are in great peril, such as if they hear screams for help, a violent encounter is in progress, objects being thrown such as glass or furniture, or shots have been fired or have been reported. I don't think this was the case in this incident. Originally Posted by acp5762

nor I, but its a simple fact had the occupant of the house opened the door the situation described in the article (true or false) would have never taken place

nor I, but its a simple fact had the occupant of the house opened the door the situation described in the article (true or false) would have never taken place Originally Posted by CJ7

Who knows, something else hideous would have probably happened.

nor I, but its a simple fact had the occupant of the house opened the door the situation described in the article (true or false) would have never taken place Originally Posted by CJ7

So you're (notice the apostrophe) saying the homeowner had no legal right to refuse the police entry into his home? The police had no warrant. And the police had no probable cause to suspect that a crime was being committed there. And no one was endanger there. Have you ever heard of the 4th amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...urth_amendment

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

nor I, but its a simple fact had the occupant of the house opened the door the situation described in the article (true or false) would have never taken place Originally Posted by CJ7

How do you know that?

The police wanted to get a tactical advantage on the neighbor. That means that wanted to put snipers in his house or, if the houses are joined, they wanted to put listening devices on the wall or maybe cut through the wall.

If he had answered the door, they were almost certainly going to occupy the place for a while and evict him for his own safety.

Arguably, the police do have the right to do that in an emergency situation - even without a warrrant.

Nonetheless, the 3rd amendment argument is bullshit. Neither the federal government nor soldiers are involved.

what the cops should have done was first call the guy to let him know what was going on ........oh wait, they did that Originally Posted by JCM800

Are you related to CBJ7 by any chance? LOL.

How do you know that?

The police wanted to get a tactical advantage on the neighbor. That means that wanted to put snipers in his house or, if the houses are joined, they wanted to put listening devices on the wall or maybe cut through the wall.

If he had answered the door, they were almost certainly going to occupy the place for a while and evict him for his own safety.

Arguably, the police do have the right to do that in an emergency situation - even without a warrrant.

Nonetheless, the 3rd amendment argument is bullshit. Neither the federal government nor soldiers are involved. Originally Posted by ExNYer

how do I know the cops wouldn't have kicked down the door if the guy had answered it ?

gee, I don't know, seems kinda logical to me

How do you know that?

The police wanted to get a tactical advantage on the neighbor. That means that wanted to put snipers in his house or, if the houses are joined, they wanted to put listening devices on the wall or maybe cut through the wall.

If he had answered the door, they were almost certainly going to occupy the place for a while and evict him for his own safety.

Arguably, the police do have the right to do that in an emergency situation - even without a warrrant.

Nonetheless, the 3rd amendment argument is bullshit. Neither the federal government nor soldiers are involved. Originally Posted by ExNYer

No they don't. Besides from the information provided from this article we really don't know what crime they were wanting to investigate. Homeowners are not obligated to give the police consent to use their property for surveillance or pursuit of criminals such as commandeering a private citizen's vehicle.

No they don't. Besides from the information provided from this article we really don't know what crime they were wanting to investigate. Homeowners are not obligated to give the police consent to use their property for surveillance or pursuit of criminals such as commandeering a private citizen's vehicle. Originally Posted by acp5762

are homeowners obligated to open the door for police when they knock ?

are homeowners obligated to open the door for police when they knock ? Originally Posted by CJ7

Depends if you want to talk to them or not.

Depends if you want to talk to them or not. Originally Posted by acp5762

no, you aren't obligated to open the door for cops

sounds like a good idea if you live in Nv though

Are you related to CBJ7 by any chance? LOL. Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

nope, but he has the same parasite attached to his ass