Even when an illegal arrest occurs does not necessarily mean that all errors will justify invoking the exclusionary rule. The courts have stated that even if the officer’s actions taken were reasonable under the circumstances, which comes under the good faith doctrine, therefore no misconduct needs to be deterred and the exclusionary rule will not apply ("The "Good Faith" Doctrine"). The officer has to prove to the courts that they have the good-faith
The woman in the first story realizes after she is terrified of a possible intruder that the danger is not an intruder but “shifting rock three thousand feet below” her. (Gordimer 1) The family is the second story is scared of riots and intruders from the riots, but in reality, the riots are outside the city and pose virtually no threat to the family. (Gordimer 2) The fear of these dangers like intruders in the story that the characters face is irrational, and they make decisions based on this irrational fear and cause more damage to themselves than the danger they are afraid of. Gordimer’s point in addressing these fears is not to take precautions from danger, but to not make irrational decisions from fears because that can cause devastating
As a general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an immediate threat. The threat could be verbal, as long as it puts the intended victim in an immediate fear or physical harm. However offensive words without an accompanying threat of immediate threat, does not justify the use of force in self-defense. Sometimes self-defense is justified even if the perceived aggressor did not actually mean the perceived victim any harm (“Self-Defense Overview-
Wesby was a very interesting case, that was just recently decided. I agree with the judges that for one there was no lawful arrest made and but I strongly disagree that there was not probable cause to make an arrest and lastly, I agree that the officers do have qualified immunity in this case. The officers made an unlawful arrest because they lacked evidence to charge the party goers with unlawful arrest. This is because the party goers did not know they were not supposed to be there at that time. The Court case states that Peaches was the supposed tenant of the house and gave the party goers permission to be there and that is why they were all there.
That only gave officers a reason to feel the need to abuse and assault you. Another example of brutality is when in the ministry of love, prisoners are cruelly punished for their crimes. Prisoners are sent to sessions where they endure things such as electric shock, rat caging of the face stretched and beaten. Winston received shock as one of his punishments. “He started and almost cried out.
The author creates an objective tone for the people who are interested in any law-and-order. Frank’s argument states that people have the wrong idea about a minor law and go against it, but they should act as if it is a violent or serious crime.
He dealt with stage regardless of the notice in light of the fact that he trusted the danger of falling was the main risk. The court held that the inability to regard a notice is not contributory carelessness if the harm was the consequence of an alternate wellspring of danger created by the respondent, and the harmed gathering was ignorant of that hazard. Solomon v. Shuell – Plain garments cops were capturing burglary suspects. The decedent thought the suspects were being assaulted and was shot by one of the officers when he left his home with a weapon. The court held that under the salvage teaching, contributory carelessness is not present if the rescuer had a sensible conviction that the
In reaction to being blackmailed, Judge Irwin opposes the blackmail through the technique of ethos, an argument based on morals (Heinrichs 40). Specifically, after Jack arrives at Irwin’s house with incriminating evidence, Irwin explains, “. . .politics is always a matter of choices” (Warren 479), and later states, “To blackmail me” (Warren 483). The ironic paradox that there are choices in politics, yet at the same time Irwin does not have a choice when blackmailed, shows the unfairness of extortion, and demonstrates the fallacy, argumentum ad baculum: a threat that does not offer the audience options (Heinrichs 178).
Using the pictures to threaten people is completely different from the exchange of pictures between two people privately. It should be considered a crime because it is harmful to the other person, but at the same time it is the problem of both the sender and the receiver because if the sender didn’t send out their nudes, many unwanted situation can be prevented. In regards to pressured or coercive sexting, it should be treated as a crime because it is the same as threatening
For officer safety reasons, I do not recommend chasing suspect(s) into unfamiliar structures without back-up. Even then, that is an individual judgment call. Plain view is another search warrant exception with specific requirements. The officer must have a legal right to view the evidence and immediately recognize it as contraband. Also, the item in question cannot be moved or manipulated.
This also empowers the attackers, as they know that their victims cannot legally fight back with lethal force. Stand your ground laws create a situation where criminals are immediately stopped in the act. To put it normatively, the common man should not be punished for taking a life in self-defense, and should not be forced to retreat when his life is threatened by another person. The only people whom this law directly hurts are those who chose to perpetuate violent crime. Repealing stand your ground laws would simply protect those who threaten the lives of
This is important because if the defendant had no knowledge of a connection with any sort of conspiracy they cannot be considered as a conspirator. I think another reason for it to be unnecessary is because the individual must have at least two allegations on them of racketeering offenses in order to be qualified to be accused of RICO. I would like to believe that people might be smart enough to realize if someone is keeping a track on them that they would keep a low profile so they don’t have another accusation against them. In order to
Since both the frisk and search was not reasonable or lawful, under the Fourth Amendment, this would be considered a violation and such evidence seized from Christina should be suppressed. The danger that would result if the court decided against my arguments is that there would be more police brutality. Although the concern that correlates with public safety is that there would be high crime rates, we need to find a way to balance public safety and an individual’s freedom. More often than not in today’s society, police officers are over using their power and often get away with it. As a result, people of color or Latinos are often the ones who suffer, since they are the targets.
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.
But with the insanity plea, the accused have a chance in defending themselves. Stating that they are suffering from a mental disorder, and because of that, they have done things that are against the law. In conclusion people that are mentally ill should have the right to chose the insanity defense, it wouldn’t be fair to just throw them into a prison when they can get a much needed treatment, putting them into a prison can harm them and the prison. Just because the insanity testimony isn’t used a lot doesn’t mean it isn’t an actual issue, so we should keep