I feel that this is an extremely important and still completely relevant amendment. Without the protection of the fourth amendment, no one would feel safe. The police/government could target individuals for little to no reason, enter our homes, and take whatever they pleased at any time they felt the urge to. The thought of that even being possible is scary beyond belief. I am not a criminal, and have nothing to hide, but the thought that the government could burst into my home whenever they pleased is terrifying.
Many jurisdictions have also held a landowner criminally liable for serious injuries or homicide caused by a spring gun other set devices. I am in disagreement of the courts decisions. This is protecting the person who is breaking and entering the house unlawfully as opposed to the landowner. In this spring gun trap, the property owner had no idea of what the man breaking into his house could be looking for. This is for the protection of the owner of the house.
There were many reports filed that questioned the police’s overall handling of this case and defamation suits filed by the Ramsey family against media organizations. The first mistake that was made in this case was allowing family and friends in and out of the Ramsey house after a kidnapping was reported. The police officers should have immediately sealed off the crime scene and taken full statements from JonBenet’s parents to study their behavior. There was also no attempt to gather sufficient forensic evidence before JonBenet’s body was found. Once the body was found, John Ramsey carried it upstairs before there was any examination.
The search ends up in an exchange of fire into a block of flats. The main character is forced to enter the block, but there is no gunman. The only result of the shooting is the loss of a little boy and a dog. The story is told by an explicit first person narrator who functions as the main character, and whose name is not told: “… I knew it was going to get worse…” The narrator is a limited narrator because he has a restricted view of the events, thus making the main character develop with the reader. The narrator is the protagonist, making him a part of
On September 25th David was arrested for vandalizing property and for burglary. David’s case became so popular in North Carolina because during his trial the state did not provide him with a lawyer. When David appeared in court he was informed of all the charges against him. The court also showed the footage of the defendants house where someone had entered his house to destroy his property and to steal. At the end of the hearings David plead not guilty.
In that case, the officers would have been able to enter his home and arrest him. (http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/disturbing-the-peace.html) But in that scenario, they still could have been shot and killed. But if they acted quickly enough, maybe they could have tazed him to where he could not retaliate. Honestly, there is nothing that could have really been done differently in that moment. As no one can tell the
Police believed that Mapp was harboring a suspected bomber, and demanded entry. No suspect was found, but police discovered a trunk of obscene pictures in Mapp 's basement. Mapp was arrested for possessing the pictures, and was convicted in an Ohio court where she lost the case in fighting her for first amendment rights. Then, Mapp argued that her Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the search of the officers and got her case taken to the U.S. Supreme Court where she won. At the time of the case, unlawfully seized evidence was banned from federal courts but not state courts, meaning that the evidence found in Mapp’s home was used against her in the Ohio court, but not the U.S. Supreme Court.
Billy is on the phone with Bob while they are talking on the phone and someone coughs and it is neither of them. Well, the government are the only ones who can hack phones and listen to phone calls, the 4th amendment has allowed this to happen. The 4th amendment has gavin the right to law enforcement to be cruel and unfair about a search and seizure. Without a warrant you cannot search a person, well not anymore, the government can search anyone at any time in some scenarios. Normally, there is an abundant amount of evidence used to be given the permission to search one’s belongings, but since 9/11 law enforcement needs little evidence to be provided a search warrant.
The Boston massacre Although many historian believe the the Boston Massacre was a murder it is clear that it is an act of self-defense. First, the situation was self-defense because Preston was trying to get the sentry to safety when they got surrounded by armed and drunken citizens. The soldiers were defending themselves because they were unable to escape with their backs against the custom house and faced an angry mob. Secondly, the solders’ fire was eight to six seconds between them. this shows that the solders fired on there own accord because usually they all fire at the same time when following orders.
The articles I chose to compare and contrast were, “Scrutinizing the Second Amendment” by Adam Winkler and “Nothing to debate: Second Amendment, legal gun in my purse saved our lives” by Lynne Russell. While there was not much to compare, aside from the articles both relating to the Second Amendment, it was quite obvious that one article was strictly opinionated, while the other was a solid analysis. In Russell’s article, she describes an event that occurred when she and her husband were traveling across the United States. They stopped at a motel for the evening and were ambushed by a deranged, armed man inside their motel room. Because her husband had two small handguns, which were concealed in the bedside table, he was able to open fire
Tasing Terence was the right thing to do when he had gotten back to his vehicle, and when it looked like he was reaching in it. For officer Betty Shelby, I do believe that charges should be pressed, and that she should not be able to continue police work. Due to the fact that she has taken a life only under suspicion of a weapon. When an officer shoots their gun, they do not shoot with the intent to kill, but they shoot to stop the opposing threat. The threat in this case was never truly identified as a threat, thus making this shooting unlawful.
Another error was a sheriff being involved in the case so much that didn’t even have anything to do with him. The sheriff wanted him to be guilty right away because of the incident that happened between Avery and the sheriff’s wife. The sheriff stated to Avery “I got you now.” The jail usually has a list of the people who were arrested the night before. When Stevens’s lawyer came to check his name wasn’t on the list. The sheriff ordered his name not be on the list.
Mark stole the principal’s car to go see his parole officer about stealing cars, proving that he doesn’t care about the concept of wrong and right because he kept doing the same thing over and over (Hinton 73). Finally, Bryon was right for turning Mark in because Mark was putting the whole household at risk. Mark had his drugs under his mattress in Bryon and his house (Hinton 145). This put everyone in the house at risk because someone could break in to get Mark’s drugs or money as people start to recognize what kind of business he is doing. Some people may argue that Bryon’s decision was wrong because he and Mark were best friends.
Lapierre implies, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” This may be true, but what if neither party had a gun? I’m not saying that all guns in America should be banned, but instead no more of these assault rifles and firearms should be allowed in the average citizen 's hand. All guns sellers should have to provide a background research, psychological test, and a contract of intent on how the buyer will use the product. With these new selling strategies in place Adam Lanza would not have had the chance to commit this horrendous