Armed bounty hunters enter home in Buffalo with police and no warrant

[spat]

It certainly doesn't. Not sure why you haven't bothered to look up with must happen for it to be burglary. Oh and nothing is up to you, so I don't know why you get so worked up over it. Move on.

I don't have to look it up, I know quite well what is involved.

Why do you think this *isn't* burglary ? What requirement for that charge wasn't met ?

If they were looking for cash and jewelry instead of a fugitive it would have undoubtedly have been a burglary right ?

Your profound misunderstanding of both ART35 and Taylor v. Taintor is quite evident in this thread.

It sounds like you have studied (maybe briefly) under some actual experts. But just because you studied under experts doesn't mean you learned the lessons correctly.

I also doubt you spent much time in that class discussing the implications of 19th century bounty hunter law.

 

[spat]

Move on.

No

 

[Chevusa]

I don't have to look it up, I know quite well what is involved.

Why do you think this *isn't* burglary ? What requirement for that charge wasn't met ?

Again 2 prongs must be met. The fact that you don't know this or what they are speaks volumes. It's troubling that you don't know basic burglary law in NY but proclaim to know SC decisions from the 1800's throughly and how they apply or do not apply in this case with limited facts known or released. It's quite telling. You are shooting from the hip and launching insults (that make no sense) as a cover. I'd drop it if I were you. For your own sake and because I'm sick of wasting time on this subject of which I just do not give a shit.

 

[spat]

Again 2 prongs must be met. The fact that you don't know this or what they are speaks volumes. It's troubling that you don't know basic burglary law in NY but proclaim to know SC decisions from the 1800's throughly and how they apply or do not apply in this case with limited facts known or released. It's quite telling. You are shooting from the hip and launching insults (that make no sense) as a cover. I'd drop it if I were you. For your own sake and because I'm sick of wasting time on this subject of which I just do not give a shit.

So, which "prong" wasn't met ?

 

[Edwardteach72]

Damn @spat Sounds like a threat from secret agent man. Remember if you even knew what he did you'd shit yourself so I think you should take his advice

 

[Chevusa]

So, which "prong" wasn't met ?

You're the expert. Tell us.

 

[spat]

You're the expert. Tell us.

All requirements of the charge were met. There is nothing missing.

 

[Chevusa]

All requirements of the charge were met. There is nothing missing.

NY burglary MUST include BOTH of the following:

1 Enter or remain unlawfully
2 Commit another crime while there

The End. Back to google school!

 

[spat]

NY burglary MUST include BOTH of the following:

1 Enter or remain unlawfully
2 Commit another crime while there

The End. Back to google school!

We've already established that they both entered illegally, and committed multiple other crimes while there.

 

[garyv350]

Damn @spat Sounds like a threat from secret agent man. Remember if you even knew what he did you'd shit yourself so I think you should take his advice

I wish he would tell us. I could use a good dump.

 

[Edwardteach72]

I wish he would tell us. I could use a good dump.

He 100% will never say what his part time security guard gig is, by leaving it vague and not outright telling anyone he can keep up the facade of being some bad ass who does cool guy shit and we'd all see he just completed like the most basic ass academy but no police department will pick him up because he is to old (makes you wonder why he never got a LEO job when he was in the age bracket) and now a few weeks out of the academy he thinks he's an actual expert

 

[Chevusa]

We've already established that they both entered illegally, and committed multiple other crimes while there.

You're done dude. You have zero credibility. You didn't know what was required for a basic burglary charge. Your interpretation into complex SC decisions and the history thereof is wayyyyy over your head.

 

[spat]

You're done dude. You have zero credibility. You didn't know what was required for a basic burglary charge. Your interpretation into complex SC decisions and the history thereof is wayyyyy over your head.

Well, one of us has no credibility. Should we put up a poll to see which one of us it is ?

It appears that your ability to understand your level of credibility in this thread is matched by your understanding of article 35 and the relevant SCOTUS decision.

 

[Saltwater60]

We don't know what if any laws were broke because we don't have the facts of the situation - al of the facts, and we don't throughly know or understand the related laws. All we have is a few quick google searches. This does not make us legal experts or give us the necessary understanding of the situation in whole. I'll relax and let it play out. If you guys want to get all excited and spike your blood pressure thats up to you.

They need permission to search a residence they tried to enter the home without permission and they searched a rental property they had no business searching. Both of those are illegal. The guy only let them in because they lied and said they had a search warrant at gun point. To me that’s forcing their way in. Again that’s illegal. All illegal per your information that you provided.

 

[Saltwater60]

No one is above the constitution NO ONE!

Correct. You either abide by the constitution as an arm of the government or it’s a crime for the most part.

 

[Saltwater60]

It certainly doesn't. Not sure why you haven't bothered to look up with must happen for it to be burglary. Oh and nothing is up to you, so I don't know why you get so worked up over it. Move on.

Meets burglary one at least for the tenants house even if everything you say is true and they didn’t forcibly enter the first home. I say they did and it’s funny that you say our opinions don’t matter. Funny thing is you’re judged by a jury of peers and I would certainly convict if I was on that jury.

First Degree Burglary: NY Penal Law 140.30

Free Consultation - Call (212) 312-7129 - Former Manhattan Prosecutor. Saland Law aggressively represents the accused against charges in Criminal & Crime cases. Serving the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens & Manhattan. First Degree Burglary: NY Penal Law 140.30 - New York Criminal Lawyer

www.google.com

 

[Chevusa]

Meets burglary one at least for the tenants house even if everything you say is true and they didn’t forcibly enter the first home. I say they did and it’s funny that you say our opinions don’t matter. Funny thing is you’re judged by a jury of peers and I would certainly convict if I was on that jury.

First Degree Burglary: NY Penal Law 140.30

Free Consultation - Call (212) 312-7129 - Former Manhattan Prosecutor. Saland Law aggressively represents the accused against charges in Criminal & Crime cases. Serving the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens & Manhattan. First Degree Burglary: NY Penal Law 140.30 - New York Criminal Lawyer

www.google.com

The problem is you will be given jury instructions and these laws are not written for bounty hunters legally entering without a warrant to apprehend a wanted criminal (SC rulings). Otherwise it could also be charged anytime police enter on a warrant (remember no warrant needed for BH). Let it play out. If they did something wrong and it can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt in court, then yes they should face the music, but we are 100 steps away from any of that. All we have are speculations, news headlines, and google U interpretations of laws that we don't know the contextual history of and how they apply or do not apply in this situation. Let it be. It all will come out in the wash.

I will say however it does not look good for the theories floating around here that they called and involved the police beforehand. It's not like they got caught doing something after the fact. They announced their actions to police and even asked them to show up to back them up. This is not something criminals do. If they were there doing something they weren't allowed to do either by law or by SC rulings, then I cannot in good faith imagine they would have broadcast their crime to the police and then conspired with them to arrive and participate in said crime. Talk about a reach. It doesn't pass the reasonableness standard. We will see where it goes. My guess is nowhere.

 

[drowhawk]

BH'er @ Chev's house: "Open up or we'll break it down."

Chev: "Tread harder daddy."

 

[Chevusa]

BH'er @ Chev's house: "Open up or we'll break it down."

Chev: "Tread harder daddy."

Yep. Or don’t harbor crims. Either way.

 

[drowhawk]

Yep. Or don’t harbor crims. Either way.

It has been established dozens, if not hundreds of times on this thread that no crime was committed by the homeowner.

 

[Chevusa]

It has been established dozens, if not hundreds of times on this thread that no crime was committed by the homeowner.

Based on what evidence? When was the crim last at that address? You repeating something does not a fact make.

 

[drowhawk]

Based on what evidence? When was the crim last at that address? You repeating something does not a fact make.

Oh, IDK. The video evidence of them not committing any crimes?

The video evidence of the BH'ers walking out empty-handed because there were no fugitives being harbored?


Oh wait, let me guess, the video was doctored?

 

[Chevusa]

Oh, IDK. The video evidence of them not committing any crimes?

The video evidence of the BH'ers walking out empty-handed because there were no fugitives being harbored?

Let it play out. All you have is a news report lol.

 

[drowhawk]

Let it play out. All you have is a news report lol.

ROFLMAOLOLHAHAHEHEFORLFMAO

No, I have a video.

 

[Chevusa]

ROFLMAOLOLHAHAHEHEFORLFMAO

No, I have a video.

And no facts behind it or understanding of SC rulings or law or case history. You can be outraged over any video. It doesn't mean you understand it or are right. Millions of people were outraged about the Michael Brown situation. Guess what? They were all wrong. The media pushed a false version of events. The truth came out. Oops!!

If they conspired with half of the police on duty at the time to commit a home invasion, as you allege, this should be a slam dunk conviction. I look forward to hearing the charges read and subsequent convictions and sentencing. I'll be waiting.

 

[drowhawk]

And no facts behind it or understanding of SC rulings or law or case history. You can be outraged over any video. It doesn't mean you understand it or are right. Millions of people were outraged about the Michael Brown situation. Guess what? They were all wrong. The media pushed a false version of events. The truth came out. Oops!!

If they conspired with half of the police on duty at the time to commit a home invasion, as you allege, this should be a slam dunk conviction. I look forward to hearing the charges read and subsequent convictions and sentencing. I'll be waiting.

Just curious how you came to the conclusion that my interpretation of case law is flawed. How do you know my education and background?

 

[drowhawk]

I'm going to answer that for you: you don't. You have made baseless claims with NO evidence to back them up for days on this thread. THEN, you have the audacity to accuse others of not backing their claims with evidence.

NEWSFLASH: The one who makes the claims has the burden of proof. This is true in civil proceedings and criminal proceedings. The standard of qualification is obviously different between the two arenas but the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the accuser. That is just how our legal system is set up.

I'd highly recommend China bro. I hear they are looking for boot-leather taste-testers.

 

[Chevusa]

Just curious how you came to the conclusion that my interpretation of case law is flawed. How do you know my education and background?

Because you can't possibly know the facts of this particular case or seen the relevant documents. Also before I chimed in here everyone was under the impression that they needed a warrant and were in violation of 4A. Those have been established to not be so.

Let it play out. The guys with the info - all of it, and knowledge of the laws - all of them, will handle this if the need is there. If the BH did something wrong they should be punished. We are a very long way from that being proven in a court of law beyond all reasonable doubt. Try to remain calm. You aren't helping the situation by getting yourself worked up.

 

[Chevusa]

You have made baseless claims with NO evidence to back them up for days on this thread. THEN, you have the audacity to accuse others of not backing their claims with evidence.

You are charging the wrongdoing. Not me. I have nothing that needs proving. Thats not how it works in the USA. You charge conspiracy to commit a home invasion with half of BPD. If so, prove it. If not shut up about it. I said it is very unlikely and even unreasonable to think they called the police to meet them at the scene of a crime and ask them to participate. It simply is not believable. If I'm wrong so be it. But it must be proven. See Criminal Procedure Law.

 

[drowhawk]

Because you can't possibly know the facts of this particular case or seen the relevant documents. Also before I chimed in here everyone was under the impression that they needed a warrant and were in violation of 4A. Those have been established to not be so.

Let it play out. The guys with the info - all of it, and knowledge of the laws - all of them, will handle this if the need is there. If the BH did something wrong they should be punished. We are a very long way from that being proven in a court of law beyond all reasonable doubt. Try to remain calm. You aren't helping the situation by getting yourself worked up.

If you knew what I did for a living, your sphincter would have an ND.