How is it that I cannot kill an intruder who is not intending me odil harm, but just to steal, but the police shoot out the tires, beat half to death (or to death) drunk drivers, or shoot bank robbers, fleeing the scene?
If we are a true government OF the people and BY the people and FOR the people, , how can ANY government department, office, or official (including police) do something that you and I are barred from doing?
The contitutuion seems t put tighter limits, not looser, on the government as opposed to the citizenry at large.
example:
I can break into a house and search for illegal items (drugs, weapons) without a warrnt but a cop (in theory) cannot.
What is going on here?
2006-06-27 05:59:44 · 9 answers · asked by athorgarak 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
To the people that disagree with the FACT that a private citizen CAN indeed carry out searches without warrants and affect arrests of criminals, they might wish to consult a lawyer that specializes in constitutional law
2006-06-27 06:31:45 · update #1
This is possible because there are still democrats in Washington, and as long as they are there, criminals will always have a friend.
The ACLU makes sure that everyone can get away with everything they want. They are all about protecting criminals and hurting the innocent.
2006-06-27 06:03:22 · answer #1 · answered by Christopher 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes it is a topsy turvy world, and yes, the point of the constitution is to limit government. The framers of the constitution were trying to perserve the liberties of individuals from arbitrary government. The contemporary governments of Europe could do just about what ever they wanted to who ever they wanted.
However, the police have no more right than you do to beat people half or all the way to death, or shoot bank robbers that aren't threatening anyone's safety. Their rules are STRICTER than yours not less strict. Some police officers violate those rules and some are caught and prosecuted.
You CANNOT legally break into a house and search for illegal items or anything else. That the police need a legal warrant to do so reflects the constitution's protection of us, from harrassment at the hands of government.
2006-06-27 06:20:08 · answer #2 · answered by enginerd 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe you CAN break into a house to search it, but it is NOT legal, any more than it is for a cop to do so. Also, I don't know what state you live in, but in Texas, if somebody broke in to your house and they are stealing from you, you DO have the right to shoot them. They are in your home illegally and how are you supposed to know if they intend you any bodily harm? They just have to be INSIDE the house when you shoot them.
Police do what they have to do in order to enforce and uphold the law. They are only human, just like you and me, and it is a really tough job. I have 2 brother-in-laws, and both of them are in law enforcement. One works for the DEA and the other is a County Sheriff. They deal with the worst of society every day, day after day, and it takes a toll on them. They have to stay calm and rational while dealing with the most dangerous and unstable people in our society. They have to be careful that they do everything "by the book" so that, when cases come to court they will not get thrown out due to some stupid technicality.
This is necessary so that we do not wind up living in some kind of "police state", like in Nazi Germany, where they have the right to run rough-shod over everybody. There ARE cops out there that are just into the job for a "power trip" and they can be as dangerous as the criminals. They need the rules that they have, just like we need laws to govern society.
2006-06-27 06:17:01 · answer #3 · answered by Oblivia 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its the rule of law; one of the things to note is the intruder example is heavily regulated by a large group of anti gun advocates. They don't want you to be benefitted by private gun ownership. They've dumbed down the laws on shooting someone in defense of yourself instead of self and property.
Law enforcement must be held to the standards that civilians are not because of a persons right against self incrimination, right to freedom of search and siezure. Those things don't apply as a right between citizens only as a right between goverments \ citizens...make sense?
2006-06-27 06:03:55 · answer #4 · answered by netjr 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree, and honestly, I don't know what's wrong. Half of it I think is just stupidity. Some of the people who are in charge of these things don't really care and are only in it for the money. At least it seems that way, huh?
2006-06-27 06:05:08 · answer #5 · answered by miss_gem_01 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Here is another one to think about: A man was on the roof of a woman's house looking down into her kitchen through the sunroof. He had every intention of killing and robbing her. The sunroof broke, he fell through it, and landed on the kitchen island with the knife she was using to cut veggies through his leg. He sued her and won.
2006-06-27 06:04:56 · answer #6 · answered by likmytulips 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You got too much free time.
2006-06-27 06:04:48 · answer #7 · answered by Collin R 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
what the hell are you talking about
2006-06-27 06:02:23 · answer #8 · answered by toothymarine 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have no idea.
2006-06-27 06:03:10 · answer #9 · answered by bddrex 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋