Written by Martin Gansberg, the article “37 Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call Police”, he communicates that bystander’s actions were significant because when someone is screaming the first instinct should be to call attention to it, the right thing to do is help, and it could have saved Genovese’s life. Bystander’s actions can go a long way, saving a life for example. When this story is told, it is often hard for many to believe, but it happened. Just with the simple action of picking up the phone, it could have stopped Kitty Genovese’s unjust
He was commit bank robbery and murder. During the investigation, police are narrowing down an area of suspects that the offender was a left-handed person. It is because the CCTV displayed that the person who commit the bank robbery is holding a gun with the left-hand. Then, police narrowed down the area of suspects, Tsui Po was not a suspect in the crime area so that police cannot arrest the offender as soon as possible. But, this does not imply that profiles should be ignored or should never be used by police again, but that profiling should be approached with caution.
The only information the officers were given was shots fired but, Deputy Murphy’s comment “if I have to go in there myself I’ll charge him with anything I can find” Is over the top and unnecessary. He didn’t know what the situation was I think the officers were right to enter his house to make sure anybody in the house is ok. Since the only information they had was shots fired the officers messed up when he took the mans keys to get into his gun safe that’s when his 4th amendment rights were violated.
However, the public will deem the search excessive use of force on the accused performed by the RCMP officer. This search would increase public outrage regarding excessive use of police powers as they believe the search could have performed in a less intrusive mean. Furthermore, the “throat hold” should not be performed on anyone especially females as it can result in health complications (Atherley & Hickman, 2014). However, it is necessary to note that the “throat hold” is a common practice used by the RCMP drug squad to prevent drug traffickers from destroying evidence. This practice is not illegal as it is used to prevent the swallowing of drugs that may be in the accused mouth that will aid in substantiating the charge.
It is because Zimbardo instructed the guards to clean and polish the prisoner’s cell when their parents visited. It was an unethical practice because they hid the real setting of the prison. They were afraid that the parents might insist on taking their son’s home if they would know the state of the jail. Although Zimbardo defended that the emotional distress experienced by the prisoners was unpredictable, it is still an unethical practice because he conducted it without realizing that there is a possible risk it may bring to the participants. He is a selfish psychologist who just wanted to get a result.
The last power I’m going to talk about is how the police have codes to protect them against any accusations that the suspects make. The first example of this would be the tape recording of proceedings that the police use when they conduct interviews when with a suspect. There are mainly two reasons why the police use tape recordings in interviews with suspects. The first reason is because it shows that the police are doing the interview right and are following procedures just like they are supposed to. Tape recordings are to make sure that the police aren’t threatening the suspect or doing anything they shouldn’t be doing, so if the suspect accuses them of doing so, the police will have proof that what the suspect is saying isn’t the true.
The people who have seen the interaction between the two would view the relationship a healthy and friendly one. Montresor has also deceived his house workers by informing them, he would not be returning until morning; nonetheless, he is requiring them to remain in the house. Montresor expresses his intentions with his confession, “These orders were sufficient, I well knew, to insure their immediate disappearance, one and all, as soon as my back was turned.”(244). This confession was to demonstrate the removal of implication or witnesses to his crime. Therefore, these actions would cause there to be no believe Montresor was guilty of foul
1985) (Ehlenberger 31). The courts decided that students have 4th Amendment rights but in concern for public safety it was decided "school officials, do not need probable cause or a warrant to search students" (Ehlenberger 31). Although the schools do not need reasonable suspicion to search students, I believe that they should wait to use drug dogs until they have confirmed the problem. This was the case at Longmont high school in Colorado where they discovered there was a drug problem. Upon learning of the problem the principal; Mary White said "To keep the problem from growing, I decided to try a controversial, but rapidly growing, means of interdiction: using dogs to sniff students lockers" (Robinson).
Let's do this.” Robbing the convenience store was a major turning point in the movie that caused a domino effect of events that could have been avoided. Had Quincy decided to stand by his commitment to the DJ contest and not succumb to peer pressure he would never have been in this situation in the first place. Had Raheem not agreed to Bishop’s order of getting the gun, then, theoretically the crime would have never happened. Had Steel spoken up when Raheem asked if he was sure he wanted to go through with the crime, like Quincy, his situation and the events that caused his death could have been avoided. Quincy’s possibility of ending up in jail and Raheem and Steel’s deaths all could have been avoided had they chose to be their own person as opposed to following the others.
We are afforded legal protections for most other private areas in our lives so why should we have almost no rights when it comes to something that we depend on and use every day? The judge in the specific Milwaukee case stated that “A person wanted on probable cause (and an arrest warrant) who is taken into custody in a public place where he had no legitimate expectation of privacy cannot complain about how the police learned his location” This argument doesn’t make much sense if you change it to be about something other than a phone. If the police searched the man’s house without a warrant in order to learn his location, then in court any evidence that they obtained within the house would be thrown out. The judge is pretty much
If everyone was aware of the consequences, the epidemic wouldn’t be nearly as bad. Heroin is a problem that won’t go away anytime soon, but if we work, we can try to eliminate it from our community. We must try to inform everyone of the dangers of heroin so they know to avoid them. We also need to work on keeping prescription drugs in a safe place, and if they aren’t being used, we need to dispose of them as soon as possible at our local police station. To conclude, the heroin epidemic is caused by the lack of information on heroin and the price of heroin compared to prescription
In New Jersey v T.L.O a vice-principal believed a student was violating the law. The vice principal searched a student 's bag and found evidence the student was dealing drugs. The court said that the search of a student by a school official will be justified when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that is violating school code or the law. In the case of Klump v. Nazareth Area School District school officials did not see a drug related text message until after the school searched the cell phone. The court said that it 's only lawful to search if the official has reasonable grounds to suspect the search will provide evidence the student has violated school rules and if the search is related to the reasoning for the initial search.