'The' Gun Thread (Page 39)

Aaron - go back and read your post.  There was ALOT more to this situtation than just the murder of 3 or 4 people.  This situation was flowing, the crime spree was ongoing, people were being killed, the suspect(s) were on the run and other people were in danger.  The fact that it was ongoing and unpredictable is the biggest reason the circumstances will be considered "exigent", or not.  But let's not act like this happens on a daily basis.....in fact, it rarely happens.  And when it does, the reasonableness of the warrantless search comes into play.  You may think that these searches, in this situation, were unreasonable, that's certainly one way to look at it.  But as I have said over and over here....the courts decide.  I'm good with that.

I guess I was asking about the general rule/law/rights in this matter, not for an answer about the specific example I posed.

I'm curios if a defense lawyer could put up a convincing argument that any arrest resulting from a "legal" search for the bomber discovered suspicion or other illegal activity not covered under the search.

But maybe it's like if the police search your car for smuggling fruit into California and they find a body...

If the search is legal, anything found that would be considered "within the scope of the search" would be admissible. 

As an example,  if the kilo of coke was on the kitchen table....if the search for the suspects is deemed to be legal than the coke will be admissible since it was in plain view.  Where it becomes inadmissible is when it is found in an area where a suspect couldn't possibly be hiding....like a dresser drawer.

Make sense?

Just my personal opinion on a couple things posted above.

To ME, terrorist is the right word.  These guys tried to instill terror.  They didn't have specific targets, it was kill/injure scare/terrorize as many people as possible.  So terrorist works for me.  Domestic or Foreign - still a terrorist.

Even though I'm almost certainly convinced this kid did it, I have to stick by our constitution/laws that you are innocent until PROVEN guilty.  So now, he IS just a 19yr old kid and not a bomber.  We have to look at it that way.

We have to let the courts and evidence prove what we all basically know - that's the way it's done here.

Perfect.  Now that you mention it, I think I knew it.  If you go searching in places you should not reasonably be looking and you find something, it's not admissible.

Life if they found something in your trunk if they looked purely for a speeding ticket.  Now if it should fall out of your glove compartment when you reach for your registration.

I don't know why they were frisked 200 feet down the sidewalk.

As to your second question......for the most part, as long as the Police can articulate a reason(s) that they needed to make an exigent circumstance search (public safety being one of the circumstances that has been upheld),  and those reasons would be considered valid by a reasonable person...they will be fine.  Courts and juries decide what is reasonable.

It's good that what they did doesn't sit good with you,  it shouldn't sit well with any American....but there are times, exigent circumstances, when it has to be done.

NO way can you make a legitimate comparison to these two events IMHO....

One a TERRORIST ATTACK, by a 19 year old TERRORIST, on the people of the United States of America and the people of the world!

The other a tragic accident caused by factors we do not know yet, but appears more than likely not intentional.

FYI, a KID is 8 (never to see 9) year old Martin Richard...

(041913-national-boston-marathon-martin-richard-8-year-old-poster-sign.jpg)

"....or.......it just gets progressively dumber."

I think I have a new line for work.

Can we move the "terrorist" argument out of the gun thread to avoid getting it shut down again?  It would be more appropriate as a stand alone subject or at least in the Boston bombing post.

Thanks

I don't disagree on the exigent circumstances argument, I would say it probably boils down to the limits the courts could/would find with it.  Obviously there is a limit.  It's OK to search a car, a house, a block, or maybe even a neighborhood, but what about a whole city, state, or even a whole country.  Obviously there's a limit somewhere, and the courts would have to decide that limit is ultimately.

Ooops, sorry.  Yeah we are out in the weeds a bit here.

I guess it seemed like a 2nd/4th amendment violation kind of thing which is why I brought it up here.

The "terrorist" thing comes up because this is the plausible scenario (New Orleans during Katrina) where LEO's are told to come for your guns. Very similar IMO to what happened in Watertown, the "circumstances where great enough to warrant the action". 

But yeah, we can move on. I move that we go to posting pics of some sweet guns. Always fun to see other's toys (errr I mean tools ). 

I'm not sure why I didn't see this on the national news tonight.  Maybe tomorrow...

Elkins Park man killed after forcing his way into apartment (with an AR15)

Why did he "declare war" on the intruder?

BREAKING: 90% Poll Further Debunked – New Poll: Most Americans Don’t Care Gun Control Failed

I know we've touched on this already, but this is just additional polling debunking the 90% support for gun control that keeps getting touted.

How can a Pew Research Poll debunk a Pew Research Poll?  If you're questioning the integrity of the February poll, wouldn't you also have to question the integrity of the April poll that you're using to justify questioning the other?  I would understand the author's point if they were using a new polling center and making claims of improper polling procedures by Pew, but Pew did both polls.

I agree, you can't use both... but it does go to show how polls are done. Just because you answer "yes" to a question, does not mean you actually "care" about the question, or are in strong support of the yes. It just means some guy asked you something coming out of a grocery store and you answered yes as you kept walking to your car.

It's also what I can't stand about politicians... they use "the people" whenever it suits them, and they ignore them when it does not. I mean seriously 90% of Americans... really? There is not much 90% of Americans will agree on and I can promise you it isn't going to be on such a decisive issue as guns. Close to half the country was against Obama Care, but they still rammed that through.

And on a side note: the article above highlights the absurdity of labels... When you need them as a tool it is a "personal defense weapon". When you are trying to ban them, they are "assault weapons" or "weapons of war". And when you have an image problem you are trying to overcome... they are "modern sporting rifles". I find them all ridiculous.

Mine is simply a LR-308. Lot's of uses. Good from paper all the way to Elk. In close quarters it even makes a good club.

I believe the Poll Obama likes to tout is the CBS News/NY Times Poll conducted on Jan 17th that concluded 92% of Americans support Universal Background Checks.  (Maybe Pew did another one too)

The bias in the CBS/NYT one comes in by the nature of the questions and answers given.  Q1  "Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gunbuyers?"  Yes or No

Heck, I may have even answered yes because given an all or none, yes I support them or no, I don't want any background checks I'd probably lean towards having them.

Here's another telling thing in that same poll, this question was asked:  Q2 "How much do you think more police or armed security guards would do to help prevent mass shootings in public places such as schools, movie theaters, and malls? Would more police or armed security guards help a lot, some, not much or not at all?"

74% of the same "pro gun control" people believe it would help some, or a lot.  For some reason that statistic never made it out of the Presidents mouth or into any legislation.

So, in my honest opinion is that it's not so much that the original poll was "debunked" it was that the question was asked in a very skewed way to get the most support as possible and then taken out of context by the president to imply that 90% of Americans supported the legislation that was in the Senate, which had a lot more to it than just background checks.

**edit

sorry, forgot to link poll:  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57564386-10391739/9-in-10-back-universal-gun-background-checks/?pageNum=2

A very underrated function in an assault weapon. When we went to the M4 with the collapsing stock, we eliminated a non-lethal or "less than lethal" use of force option. Rioters/hungry Hatians, etc. are more likely to survive a good butt stroke from an M16A2 when they're escalating force. They don't generally survive trigger-pulling.

The author didn’t say what poll he was debunking, but since he was relying on Pew I used a Pew poll about background checks from February (http://www.people-press.org/files/2013/02/2-21-13-16.png).  They asked “Do you favor/oppose background checks for private & gun show sales?”  Slightly different wording than the NYT poll, and slightly different results.  83% favored, and 15% opposed.  According to the author, the second poll would debunk the first poll.  Why, because it was taken second?  It would be just as easy (and incorrect) for the left to say the February poll debunks the April poll. 

The second poll is just as ambiguously worded as the NYT poll was.  It asked “What word best describes how you feel about the Senate voting down new gun control legislation that included background checks on gun purchases?”  There was quite a bit more than expanded background checks that died in the Senate last week.  If someone was generally supportive of background checks at gun shows, but adamantly opposed to any type of assault weapons ban, they'd answer this question as either happy or relieved. 

But mostly you just need to look to what Powerman said.  Polls are a flawed system that proves nothing and only serves to provide fodder for politicians, the media, and bloggers.  If polling was accurate, we’d all be complaining about the horrible job President Romney is doing right now instead of complaining about the horrible job President Obama is doing. 

For the record I never suggest the poll was debunking another poll.  They may have eluded to it in the article, but my point is the new poll debunks the nonsense that 90% of people supported the legislation that was presented in the house.

I do completely agree with you that Polls are a flawed system.