# Police Deputy smashes into home, attacks family for flying flag upside down. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 30, 2007, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-deputy-smashes-into-home-attacks-family-for-flying-flag-upside-down/413735 "2007-07-30T20:54:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 24
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2007, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-deputy-smashes-into-home-attacks-family-for-flying-flag-upside-down/413735/461 "2007-08-15T08:50:34Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] Note that “probable cause” doesn’t fall under any of these exceptions, except possibly the last one, which clearly doesn’t apply to this case and which is covered by my previous post on the topic. [/QUOTE] I see what you’re saying. It doesn’t actually _say_ probable cause, but that’s what cops call it. Anyway, I don’t want to get hung up on what it’s _called_, because that’s not the most important thing here. The point is, unless I am mistaken, that there can be circumstances present at the scene under which entry into a home is allowed. I have heard policemen refer to this as “probable cause”. But I’m not going to argue about the _name_ of it anymore, because it’s not the point. > [@](#): > > unless you believe all the witnesses to the event were lying and that the cop in question is incredibly uncoordinated (that is, he was not able to pull his hand back from a door in time to have his fist be hit by the glass pain). Who are you talking to? Surely you aren’t still laboring under the misconception that I am defending that particular officer’s actions in any way. If you are, you haven’t read this thread at all. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2007, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-deputy-smashes-into-home-attacks-family-for-flying-flag-upside-down/413735/462 "2007-08-15T08:51:52Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] Oh, look: Magellan’s friend! :rolleyes: If I were the thread police, your thread’s door would be knocked down by now, or haven’t you noticed what we’re talking about? [/QUOTE] Buh? What are you talking about? Who’s Magellan, and what in the blue fuck does any of that have to do with me? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2007, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-deputy-smashes-into-home-attacks-family-for-flying-flag-upside-down/413735/463 "2007-08-16T10:43:46Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Ahem. “Community caretaker.” [/QUOTE] A little bit of Googling isn’t giving me a cut-and-dried definition of this term, but the oblique references I can find to it imply that it’s a doctrine by which a cop may warrantlessly enter a home if there is a clear and present danger to some member of the public that may be prevented by the entry. Is this correct? If so, then yeah, that makes sense as a doctrine, and yeah, it was omitted by the article I cited, and if that’s the point you were making, then point taken. But if you’re suggesting the community caretaker doctrine applies to this case, I’m afraid I’m not following the rationale. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2007, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-deputy-smashes-into-home-attacks-family-for-flying-flag-upside-down/413735/464 "2007-08-16T12:17:19Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] A little bit of Googling isn’t giving me a cut-and-dried definition of this term, but the oblique references I can find to it imply that it’s a doctrine by which a cop may warrantlessly enter a home if there is a clear and present danger to some member of the public that may be prevented by the entry. Is this correct? If so, then yeah, that makes sense as a doctrine, and yeah, it was omitted by the article I cited, and if that’s the point you were making, then point taken. But if you’re suggesting the community caretaker doctrine applies to this case, I’m afraid I’m not following the rationale. Daniel [/QUOTE] Not only that, but it is a doctrine which falls under the umbrella of exigent circumstances, which you noted. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/police-deputy-smashes-into-home-attacks-family-for-flying-flag-upside-down/413735.md?page=23)