If a civilian’s rights are violated they may be allowed to have protection through state and federal laws, which means the person whose rights were violated are being protected by the government. One of the main reason for civil rights laws is to protect civilians from government abuse. Even though the police officer went too far with a civilian, the police officer cannot be sued. The civilian still has recourse through federal law. Retired police officer David Couper talks to Dr. Greg Gelembiuk, one who gathers data from police reports, “Sometimes I hear the argument that raising the bar on police use of deadly force will somehow put more police officers in physical jeopardy.
What the article is saying is that if you take away the handgun of a citizen who has done no harm, and when there is a need for the protection of your family and they have no gun then they have nothing else to do but hide and hope the criminal does not find them before the police come. In conclusion, Gun Control can be good in many different ways, until it interferes with the protection of someone else's life or family. To understand gun control more it is important to know about the laws passed, pros, and cons. The laws that were passed play an important role in Gun control and they can help the crime rates with guns go down. Gun Control can do its job with interfering with law abiding gun owners as little as possible.
The safety of the community is crucial and attempting to deam stop and frisk as unconstitutional limits law enforcement. There is much controversy on how it can target a certain group or race but I believe the goal of any police is to deter crime when implementing stop and frisk. I believe stop and frisk can help reduce crimes and eliminate potential crime in a city, neighborhood, or street. Boyette, C., & Martinez, M. (2013). Court blocks ruling against NYPD's stop-and-frisk policy.
Some people believe this because they keep peoples phones records,they watch what you do, and they listen to private conversations. This is unconstitutional because our Fourth Amendment states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects of unreasonable searches and seizures.” The U.S constitution is being violated by the NSA because they keep all phone records, they listen to private conversations ,they also spy from mostly every camera and they even search through what people have done online. The topic I chose is NSA spying, NSA stands for national security agency, what they do is watch over people in
These regulations would help tremendously with crime related to guns however these forms are conducted only in store purchases. Which leads to many loopholes in the system were criminals can purchase a gun. Also, Current laws require licensed retailers to see a buyer’s identification and require buyers to complete a lengthy Firearms Transaction Record, which certifies that buyers are purchasing a gun for themselves and that they are not prohibited from owning a gun. Licensed retailers also must submit this information for a background check and keep a record of the purchase. Unlicensed vendors or individual attendees at gun shows, however, are not required to follow these same federal
I don’t think surveys should be used in an argumentative article about violence or gun control laws. The other problem with comparing these sets of data with one another were the variance in culture, urban structure, and government structure that these two nations have with one another. The two nations also have differing definitions of “violent” crimes. These are simply logical fallacies that should eliminate this author’s sources from the argument of the article. A more effective form of arguing comparative data on violent crimes may have been from police or official records comparing states that have more or less strict gun control laws.
Courts have determined that police are allotted broad discretion as to the techniques and tactics they are allowed to engage in when interrogating a suspect, with the exception of threats of violence and promises of leniency. However, an increasingly prevalent problem arises that the courts have yet to respond to by consensus, and that is the problem of when non-public details that become a part of a suspect’s confession originate from the interrogating detectives and not the suspect themselves. The current system fails to apply important developments in the management of errors and quality control that results in miscarriages of justice. Wrongful convictions remains one of the most serious miscarriages of justice, violating the most fundamental
The owning and bearing of arms is not only protected under the Constitution as a means of defense against armed burglary, but also against military invasion. If the U.S. Military became incapacitated by, for instance, nuclear efforts, the only remaining line of defense on American soil would be her citizens themselves” (The Financial Word, par 6). Additionally, armed robbery or assault could conceivably be attempted by an armed and organized group, as opposed to a single, armed perpetrator. Banning assault weapons would render any individual powerless against a greater threat than a single invader. Gun Control advocates wrongly assign the blame for violent crime on the tools used to perpetrate it.
The public will view the throat hold as the excessive use of force; however, the search to acquire the evidence to substantiate the charge, could not have been obtained in a less intrusive manner. The case R. v. Hamill,  1 S.C.R. 301, saw the throat hold being used by RCMP officer to secure the accused while a search was conducted on the apartment. This provides evidence that throat hold performed by the officer is a common method used against individuals suspected of involvement in drug trafficking (R. v. Hamill,  1 S.C.R. 301).
“Absent reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures”. Another recent court case that remarkably challenges the Fourth Amendment is, Riley v. California. The case covered the right of officers to obtain information from cellular devices. The case ended with the need for warrants to be issued to legally search cellphones. There are court cases that will always go on fighting these rights constantly due to error or sheer ignorance, but the natural rights of citizens
As the democratic view adheres to the nation’s longstanding history of immigration, the Republican party does not believe immigrants should be granted the same rights as any american citizen. They believe that these illegal immigrants bring with them drugs and crime as well as take jobs that should be held by US citizens, calling for their mass deportation. With crime at its lowest in the last 25 years, both the democratic party and republican party seek to further this societal improvement. To them, the best method of controlling crime is to administer tougher punishments for those who commit violent crimes as well as leaving the death penalty as an option for the most heinous offences. The Democratic party believes we must also increase the number of cops on the streets, while Republicans wish to limit the amount of freed prisoners.
In “Mobile Phone Tracking Scrutinized,” published in the Information Management Journal, associate editor Nikki Swartz identifies the issue of whether the judicial system should allow cell phone tracking records be used in courts. Although it can prove a person innocence of guilt, it violates various laws that have been implemented to protect the privacy of citizens. Questions arise to whether allowing location information should be obtained without the consumer’s knowledge. Swartz notes that in many cases “prosecutors have asked courts for the right to obtain cell-tracking data as a suspect is moving.” (Allyn & Bacon 219) If the court permits, they can allow such actions on accounts that it be a probable cause; these actions are not required
Apple is trying to protect the American people that own any apple product from the FBI. The FBI wants apple to unlock the phone from the San Bernardino 's but Apple is not doing it because it is against the 4th amendment. Since the FBI can’t get into it because Apple can not give permission to the FBI, also they don’t have any reason to look at the phone so Apple did not allow tat to happen. My opinion on this matter is that apple is doing the right thing, if the government was able to get a hold of all the information that a single person had on their phone, I am pretty sure people would be embarrassed because of all the personal information on their phones. If Apple gave them the right to look through their phone than the 4th amendment would be compromised and then that can start an up riot.