DescentBB

Last week there were reports of children screaming in a known paedophile's home.

police officers went to house but were refused entry, two 15 yr old girls were seen in the house however, and the police contacted there parents.***
the officers gave a warning.

about an hour later they had more reports about screaming girls, so off they went back to the guy's house, he answered in his udnerwear. the offcier's acting on instictints barged into the house to find nothing.

this man has already served a 10 yr sentence for raping two young girls

now. the paedophile brought the two officers to court becuase they didn't have a warrent. now they have to pay £4000 (edging around $7000 ish) PLUS interest!

what a crock of ★■◆●. the law is law as far as having a warrent but ffs.

what would you do?

talk to the girls, fine them with ... something.

screaming "for the fun of it"?

it's not explained why these girls were screaming haag

thats true, also i meant to add a ps...

*** = their parents have had no comments in the article,

the article mentions "horrific" cries.

i couldnt find the text online so I just typed out a summary from the paper...

still tho - even if he was, eg, tickling them - wouldnt you be suspiscious

the guilty party here is either the guy, or the girls.

the cops are acting on the screams. i doubt the cops will have anything to worry about.

except for the ridiculous 4 grand + interest they will have to pay...

jobs are definatly secure - child protesters, the police executive are standing up for the offcicers.

I think the child molester should be given a free skydiving lesson...and if he completes his first jump they should let him use a parachute for his next jump...

Seriously though, a very public jury trial should not only get the cops off the hook but probably cause the nieghborhood to run the bum out of town unless he's living among a town full of like minded sicko's.

If that had happened in the states the police would be ok. It sounds like they had probable cause to enter the home with a warrant.

You mean "without".

The problem with "probable cause" is that it is VERY vague indeed. In NZ it's worded differently; "With strong evidence to suggest...".

And believe me, that "evidence" must be more than "A hunch" and more than "He was acting suspicious".

Nope, I fully support any law which keeps police out of your home without a warrant, or a VERY VERY good reason to enter without one. In NZ, they can't enter your home without a warrant unless they invoke the Misuse of Drugs Act 1988 (Very tough - seldom happens), or a have reports of physical violence occuring. The screams would do it I think.

Mobius wrote:The problem with "probable cause" is that it is VERY vague indeed. In NZ it's worded differently; "With strong evidence to suggest...".

That's just as weak and you know it. "Strong suggestions" are hardly better than "probable cause."

Mobius. Putting the ZEAL in New Zealand everyday.