To enter residence without warrant must have probable cause to believe a crime was being committed (not had been committed) or a belief that a person’s health and well being was in danger. I guess they could make an argument that they were doing the former but I’d take my chances with that if I were defense counsel. If family had just refused to answer door and announced that no one in the house was injured or in need of medical attention, it would have been the better move.
[-2] October 21, 2016 at 12:23pm
warrantless entry into a residence is only allowed to prevent a crime from being committed or to assess the health and well being of an occupent. Since cops had no probable cause that a crime was being committed (they only had evidence that a crime had been committed) the only argument they could make was that based on the nature of the car and the fact the car was registered to a particular person they could investigate and assess the well being of that individual. Doesn’t look like that’s what they tried to do that here. Argument could be made but if residents had just refused to open door it would have been the smarter move. Remember article has no information showing witness observing a particular person driving the vehicle.
 October 21, 2016 at 10:45am
Sorry, read that comment and it didn’t come out like I wanted. I was focusing on actions of police and mom and son prior to everyone coming out of the house and attacking cops. Everything after that is completely ********.
[-18] October 21, 2016 at 10:43am
The mom and kid should have been respectful, but the officers had no warrant to enter property so that refusal is legitimate.
Sorry, read that comment and it didn't come out like I wanted. I was focusing on actions of police and mom and son prior to everyone coming out of the house and attacking cops. Everything after that is completely bullshit.
I am not a cop, but tracing a car involved in an accident is cause to search the car, and a least question the occupants of the house. Warrant, no, so they could not go in. I am pretty sure a judge would sign a search warrant, seeing that the accident car was in its own driveway after a hit and run. Personally, I don't see why they could not search the house, just based on the car. Common sense denied keeps police from completing their jobs.
MoDem you would be 100% correct. Except for two little words. Probable Cause. But thank you for playing "Spray my ignorance across the internet" today and giving those people from the news story a run for their money on claiming the stupidly crown for todays contest.
"Truth to a Liberal is as Salt to a Slug"
You're ignorant MoDem. They don't need a warrant to enter and investigate the possibility of Criminal wrongdoing in this case. You'd make just as good an Attorney as this Mom, and I use that term loosly, and her Children.
Try it, see how it works out for you/
No warrant was necessary in that case. There had been a report of reckless driving, a hit and run, and a damaged vehicle was found at the nearby house. The driver was said to be inside. The cops could have done a lot more than they did.
Nope! Probable cause is enough reason. There was a crime committed and they wished to speak to the probable perpetrator, they didn’t need a warrant. Please don’t make excuses for the “dint do nuffins”. They are quite capable of coming up with their own excuses about why they are not responsible and should not be held accountable.
[-2] October 20, 2016 at 12:42pm
How dare you disparage the integrity of WikiLeaks. They are infallible. For shame.
Mo : The Lefties all loved Wiki when they were making the American military look bad !
 October 20, 2016 at 7:14am
I love how a vast minority of people start using “we the people” to sound more legitimate when espousing conspiracy theories.
October 19, 2016 at 8:47pm
So do we belive this and believe Trump’s accuser, or not believe either? Or do put on Trump blinders and belive this but not Trump’s accuser?
 October 19, 2016 at 11:14am
Honor and integrity, from a swing state and happens to be a minority. Glad we didn’t pick this guy.
[-2] October 18, 2016 at 9:40pm
Exception to hearsay rule is when the statement is from a party opponent.
 October 18, 2016 at 11:59am
“Critically injured 2-year old” should not be a throwaway sentence in the middle of the story. Maybe after telling us that the officers are okay you spend another sentence or two to let us know how the little boy is doing?
Mo: Confucius says, "People who post intricate chemical knowledge about improvised explosives should be the first suspects in a probe." I'll bet you never before looked at it that way? lol
Sarge: Ha, no I didnt. But actually every other article except for blaze had the ammonium nitrate thing in it. Apparently the undercover agent posed as the supplier.
 October 16, 2016 at 7:44am
They go that long so they can no every facet of the operation, get all their contacts, build up fool proof evidence and show it wasn’t entrapment. Defenses have won verdicts in the past when they stopped the plot earlier because there hadn’t been “a substantial step” in actually carrying out the attacks. So they usually wait until they can meet that standard. Also, feds don’t like to lose trials and don’t take chances so they wait until they have a sure thing before they arrest.
[-1] October 15, 2016 at 10:23pm
Okay over/under on old white people hanging around polling places claiming that the same minority voted multiple times when in fact it was different people of the same ethnic background with their excuse being “they all look alike”? I’m putting the line at 8.
You want the simple answer?
Bush won and Gore lost.
The rules were the rules, and what Gore basically wanted to do was change the rules after the fact. Even if the results had been in doubt it would have gone to the state legislature under the rules.
But that was Republican controlled, so Gore took it to court instead. In the meantime while he was talking about 'counting all the votes', he was sending lawyers to every single county in the state to have absentee mail in ballots thrown out for any possible reason they could think of, and in some cases this was done against the rules.
This however became a non-issue since it went to the SCOTUS who basically said 'there were rules, the rules were followed, you can't change the rules after the fact just because you don't like the results'
I think we all need a Civics lesson. I understand they don't teach it in schools much anymore... Here is a good site to read to understand "Popular Vote" vs "Electoral College".
In ties...the House of Representatives selects a POTUS and the Senate the VPOTUS. In actuality, we could end up with a POTUS and VPOTUS from different parties.
Andrew Johnson was a Democratic VP under Republican President Abraham Lincoln. They actually ran together on the same ticket ("Union") in 1864. And in some cases in our past...the winner of an election was POTUS and the one coming in second...the VP..
In 1796 John Adams, a Federalist, finished first and Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, finished second.
John Caldwell Calhoun was a Whig, and served as VP under Adams (Democratic-Republican) and Jackson, (Democratic).
Elections are not always cut and dry....
[-3] October 14, 2016 at 8:54pm
They’re the only Republicans to win a presidential election in the last 30 years, but ya sure, they’re worthless.
No kidding. Anyone who's been paying the slightest bit of attention knew exactly how this was going to go. The media gives Trump everything he wants until he's the nominee and then 40 years of dirt would come crashing down on his head while they covered for Hillary. But hey, Trump.