Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: old curmudgeon

Hah! It WAS hot pursuit, and it has everything to do with property rights of private citizens versus the rights of LEO’s to violate those property rights. It is clear.


66 posted on 07/23/2013 11:47:21 AM PDT by SgtHooper (The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]


To: SgtHooper

Go back and read the story.

Hot pursuit is when you are chasing the guy with him in sight.

Hot pursuit is when you see him go in the house.

In the story you are talking about, there was no pursuit. The cops wanted to set up an observation point, spying position, whatever you want to call it but it was not in pursuit of a guy that had just committed a crime.


68 posted on 07/23/2013 2:44:20 PM PDT by old curmudgeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

To: SgtHooper

I left out the point that it could not have been hot pursuit as that term is used, because the BG was not in the house the cops wanted to take over.

He was in the house next door and the cops knew it. They wanted the house they invaded for the sole purpose of observation.

That is not hot pursuit.


71 posted on 07/23/2013 5:56:02 PM PDT by old curmudgeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson