You are wrong about police.
Dr. Who (09-05-2019),Just AnotherPerson (09-05-2019),MMC (09-05-2019)
No defense at all. Fire them and prosecute them.
How crazy alt righties got pwnd by a conervative web site:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/berlins.../#3b7ecb78e9b5
il·lib·er·ali(l)ˈlib(ə)rəladjective1.opposed to liberal principles; restricting freedom of thought or behavior
"illiberal and anti-democratic policies
synonyms: intolerant, narrow-minded, unenlightened, conservative, reactionary;
More than likely a leftist. Evidenced by not knowing what to do. Did he apologize for being white?
History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~
Wow!
We are all brothers and sisters in humanity. We are all made from the same dust of stars. We cannot be separated because all life is interconnected.
Helena (09-05-2019)
I don't know enough about this circumstance to know whether it was or wasn't justified, however, for educational purposes: One of the recognized exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement is the exigent circumstances exception, where “the exigencies of [a] situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393–394, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978). The exigent circumstances exception justifies a warrantless entry into a residence in certain situations, including when “immediate entry is necessary to stop the imminent loss, removal, or destruction of evidence or contraband.” State v. Karle, 144 Ohio App.3d 125, 131, 759 N.E.2d 815 (1st Dist.2001), citing Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 39–40, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963). “For the exigent circumstances exception to apply, the state must establish both probable cause and ‘some real likelihood that the evidence is in danger of being moved or destroyed in the time that it would take to get a warrant.’ ” State v. Christopher, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2009–08–041, 2010-Ohio-1816, 2010 WL 1660489, ¶ 32, quoting State v. Hatfield, 4th Dist. Ross No. 98CA2426, 1999 WL 158472, *5 (Mar. 11, 1999).
I do not do criminal law and I can't imagine the justification for arresting the minor but I'm curious what probable cause existed to believe that there was evidence or the girl in the house at the time. My guess is none. It sounds like a lawsuit is coming.
Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes
Dr. Who (09-05-2019)
Why does it start and stop with a lawsuit and never a criminal prosecution?
"The state must establish"... when? After the warrantless entry? Couldn't be before because that would waste time when all they "need" is the above excuse.
The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. ... unless EXIGENCIES!
You are wrong about police.
stjames1_53 (09-09-2019)