Why the fuck would I retract my statement? My evidence is that the police were in his home, and he had a protected interest. Which of those two things do you dispute?
What a lame tactic! You made a claim which I disputed it. You then made two new ones and asked me which of those I dispute to steer away from your making of a claim that you can’t back up. Do you really think this is going to fool anyone?
No, you made a claim first, and have yet to even try and support it. Then I disputed it, and backed up my position. Talk about lame. My claims are 100% supported by the account given in the OP, so who the fuck do you think I’m trying to fool?
“I walk into my house and give my phone to the first cop I see.”
Cops in the house.
That’s because it’s obvious to everyone reading this thread that bothered to click on the links in the OP that a search did not take place. But I’ll post the evidence for you:
You didn’t back up your position. You said a search occurred and have not provided any evidence for it.
That doesn’t back up your claim. You realize that they didn’t barge into the house, right?
Oh, I see now. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You think that the police can’t perform a search if they’ve been invited into the house. No wonder we’re getting nowhere.
Are you serious? This is getting hard to buy.
I never said the police can’t perform a search if they’ve been invited into your home. They can under certain circumstances, which wasn’t the case here as they kept asking for permission and left the house the first time they were asked to.
But whether or not I think that the police can’t perform a search if they’ve been invited into a house is irrelevant. You claimed a search took place and have failed to provide any evidence that one did take place or even attempt to dispute the evidence that I presented that one didn’t.
You made your claim first, so back it up. I’ve thoroughly supported mine, even if you have kept your fingers in your ears the entire time. Back your claim up.
In the United States, a search has occurred if two things happen:
- An officer of the law attempts to gather information from a person, place, or thing, and
- The citizen has an interest in maintaining privacy.
Both of the above happened in this case, as outlined by the account in the OP.
#1 occurred when the police officers entered the home:
…and attempt to obtain information:
This establishes that the cops were in the house with the intent to gather information.
#2 is in evidence, based on the homeowner’s desire to maintain his privacy, here:
and here:
Conditions 1 and 2 are satisfied, as outlined in the OP, which 100% supports my assertion that a search took place.
Your turn.
I did. See post 105. Do you know why they threatened to get warrants? Because they wouldn’t perform a search without permission or a warrant and they didn’t. They were denied permission several times and left without a search ever having taken place.
Where did you obtain that definition?
Post 105 does not offer any evidence to support your assertion. You just restated the assertion. It is possible for an offer to leave a search without obtaining evidence.
I want evidence of your assertion.
I posted a quote from the article that proves my position.
You’re not going to tell me where you obtained that definition, are you?
Why do you keep making non-sequitors like this? Please don’t take offense to this question, but have you been drinking tonight? If you have, I’ll stop posting and maybe we can continue tomorrow.
It’s not a non-sequitur. You offered the fact that the officers left without evidence as support for your statement that a search did not occur.
Here.
Would you like 50 other cites?
No, your stance is retarded. :dubious:
Children have been using (after having been properly trained in the use and handling of) guns responsibly, since the inception of this country.
And are*** still doing so***. 
No. Moore said the police left “empty handed and seeing nothing” because he did not allow a search to take place. More evidence for you:
If it any point a search had taken place, it would have been mentioned in the story. You seem to know that as you’re hanging your hat on a definition for what a police search is that you keep ignoring a request of validation for.
Where did you obtain that definition of what constitutes a police search?
On preview:
No, one would be fine. One that actually backs up your claim, that is. A “police examination” never took place.
So, where did you get the definition you first posted? Please answer this.
They examined his house for firearms, and wanted to extend the search to the inside of his safe. How do you think they found the safe? My cite backs me up completely.
Please offer evidence for your claim. I’ve asked multiple times, and you’ve yet to even try.
Cite, please.
They found a safe? Cite, please. In case you cite that the police make mention of a safe, understand that that is not evidence that they “found” anything. Moore could have volunteered information about there being a safe or his wife could have and that wasn’t mentioned in the account. There was no search as there not having been one is one of Moore’s biggest bragging points.
This keeps getting harder to buy.
So, where did you get the definition you first posted for what constitutes a police search? Please answer this.
there was a search according to the article and it was stopped with a phone call to a lawyer.