Are police men allowed to arrest someone inside a church?
Your brother's girlfriend might be related to or a follower of the late Rev. David Koresh (Vernon Howell), a minister of the Seventh Day Adventist Church and leader of the Branch Davidians of that church. Koresh thought that the Mt. Carmel complex near Waco, which was church property and in fact, contained a church building within it, could not be entered by law enforcement either, with or without a search/arrest warrant. We all know what happened to Koresh and many of his followers! The fact is, the police and other law enforcement agencies can and do enter places of worship when they are properly authorized by court orders or when innocent lives are being threatened or violated. On the evening of Sept. 15, 1999 a gun man entered the Wedgewood Baptist Church in Fort Worth and started shooting at people attending a youth rally therein. The police/SWAT team rushed to the church immediately upon being notified and entered the sanctuary but the gunman had shot himself by that time. If a gunman entered your church and did the same thing while you and you family were there; would you have preferred that the police enter the building and take him out or would you feel, according to your brother's girls girlfriend, that police couldn't enter a church? Which way makes more sense to you?
There are a few too many pronouns in your question:Can the FBI arrest someone if they (the FBI or the someone?) were able to hack their (the FBI or the someone?) personal encryption?We’ll do this combinatorially:The FBI can possibly arrest someone (whom they otherwise wouldn’t be able to arrest) if the FBI could break the someone’s encryption. However, there’s pretty much only one fact pattern that gives rise to such an arrest: the FBI has probable cause to believe the person committed a crime, then obtained a search warrant to seize stuff having the suspect’s encrypted information, then the FBI decrypted it and found further evidence of a crime.Maybe a variation of the fact pattern is that the FBI, through legal means, obtained and decrypted the information. (For example, if the suspect decided to throw out a bunch of encrypted USB sticks without erasing them, the FBI can legally go through the trash and recover them. Or if the suspect posted encrypted information on some publicly accessible location online.)But if the encrypted information is only on, say, the suspect’s personal computer in his home and not otherwise accessible online, the FBI can’t enter the suspect’s home, decrypt the information, and then use the information against the suspect in any way. At least, not without a warrantOkay, next case: let’s say it’s the someone who can break encryption. I wouldn’t call this a gray area, but there are some fine lines to draw. Merely having the capability of breaking encryption isn’t illegal. As Adam Gering noted, academics and researchers (among other people) spend a lot of time figuring out how to do this. This includes being able to decrypt information held by the FBI.However, there are some circumstances where actually decrypting that information can lead to both civil and criminal liability. Just to name a few out of many potentially relevant laws, decrypting sensitive information might run afoul of the Economic Espionage Act, the National Information Infrastructure Act, or even the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
No.But, if they can prove that you were actively plotting to commit a crime, particularly if you involved others in your planning, then you can be charged with conspiracy to commit a crime.This actually became a serious legal question in the case of Gilberto Valle (the "Cannibal Cop"). He was a police officer who had a fetish for sexual fantasies that involved eating people. He chatted with people who he met in forums based around that fetish, and they discussed plans to actually abduct and eat women. The case revolved around whether it was a real plot, or merely a fantasy.Without going into the details, he was convicted, but his conviction was later overturned, on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to prove he was actually planning to do anything. As sick as the fantasies may have been, it's only actually illegal if they can prove that it was an actual plot.
If someone confesses murder during confession, does the priest tell the police?
unquestionably, the regulation is a splash nebulous in this one. i do no longer think of the legal equipment can "rigidity" it yet i believe they might carry the priest in contempt for no longer telling. My person-friendly expertise is that if it has to do with the abuse of a baby they might ought to tell or could be prosecuted for no longer telling. As for different crimes, i think of there is far less hard regulation. The legal equipment is a humorous element. There are rules yet a sturdy legal expert on the two side could make some incredibly sturdy arguments. I additionally do no longer think of a shrink can tell in case you tell them you killed somebody previous annoying. they're basically obligated to checklist if there is immenint danger to a guy or woman's existence and that they ought to inform to save that guy or woman from injury or demise. So in case you assert you're on your thank you to kill somebody they ought to inform, in case you informed them you only got here from killing somebody, they do no longer. finally, whilst it includes legal themes like this, do no longer place self belief in the words of anybody out right here. whether they declare to be a legal expert, priest, or shrink. basically place self belief in the be attentive to a legal expert which you communicate to in guy or woman (so can validate they're a real legal expert that has exceeded the Bar). constantly seek for suggestion from legal counsel for questions of an significant nature like this one.
Can FBI really break into your house and plant spy bugs?
The ATF spied on me and got on my websites. Some they could not access. They only found a couple sentences on one forum, concerning purifying chemicals; it had nothing to do with "bombs", and there l was no proof it was me posting it (I proved that later, My Self, in Court!) After a month , they raided. They found some rocket fuel, in a steel container in a brick garage, some Estes rockets and motors. They dropped it. So, I guess they Can, even without cause. Someone here has the definition of the of Patriot Act wrong. It only allows wiretapping and internet monitoring without cause or warrant on suspected "terrorist" activities. It does not absolve them from telling the truth in court. Their evidence has to come from somewhere, in court they must show where and when and how, and, Why.
Sure, although if you get “caught” for a serious crime, there is a good chance the police will find another way to get to you. They will be aware of the crime, and even if the evidence (seeing you standing over a dead body with a knife in your hand) is inadmissible, they will work very hard to find admissible evidence.In a lesser case, it’s quite likely you’ll get off. When I was in high school, my father was stopped by a local policeman for going 20 mph in a school zone (the speed limit dropped from 25 mph to 15 mph from 7:00 AM - 8:00 AM). The time was about 7:55, and the policeman spent about 5–10 minutes talking to the station and then filling the ticket out, then gave my father a ticket on which the time 8:05 AM was written. My father challenged the ticket, showed up in court, and pointed out that we was cited for driving 20 mph at a time when that was actually 5 mph under the speed limit. The case was immediately dismissed. Even if the officer had showed up and testified that the stop occurred at 7:55, I doubt that would have overridden what he wrote on the ticket, and the court might reasonably have wondered how, weeks later, he was so certain about the “right” time when he couldn’t even get it right, on the ticket, at the time it happened.
Why are assault guns allowed at schools when they cause mass murder?You’re kidding…An ASSAULT GUN!?You think an armored combat vehicle (usually a tank) is allowed to be brought onto school grounds with a working gun? (Edited)(EDIT: So it has come to light that in some countries such as the US, you can own a tank. However, the guns would need to be disabled to be privately owned unless you go through a hell of a lot of paperwork and permits to maintain the main gun in working condition; even more for the machine gun(s), and that’s also considering your ability to find ammo for it in the US. So my claim you can’t buy a tank was wrong and completely my fault. I have now changed it to the tank entering school premises. Sorry for the inconvenience.)There’s two possibilities of why this question was posted in my opinion sorted by lkeliness:You misused the termMuch like many politicians who are anti-gun, you confused the term “assault rifle.” Just remember that when you try to be an activist for a certain agenda, know what you’re saying. Trust me, you won’t get away with using fancy terms in debates like in middle school, because most likely your opponent would question you on said term.It’s satireThe second one is the possibility you just added this question as satire, to mock the anti-gun agenda. However I find this highly unlikely; you don’t exaggerate the question beyond simple misunderstandings. Although, you word it so that anti-gun activists would mistake “assault gun,” with “assault rifles.”So all things considered, it’s most likely that you used the incorrect term. Just remember to be careful when you use certain terms.
Countries where murder is legal
Well, child pornography is not legal in many countries of Africa just as much as it is not illegal. No laws for it or against it. I wanted to start a business in a country like these that would provide loved ones closure by eradicating the world's most lethal excrement. But, there would be predecessors to pursue this type of work for business only purposes; like being compensated to rid the client's life insurance payee. Nope. My business would have morals by perusing serial killers, rapists and pedophiles. A lot of people in the US who search for assassins to do their dirty work usually turn to employment agencies where there are folks who will do anything if the money is more than fair enough. I read somewhere that the dark web is another option.
No, not independently. Their jurisdiction, as granted by US law, extends to the United States and it’s territories. With, and only with, the host nations authority, may they engage in investigative activity, and usually that is with the host nations oversight, supervision and oftentimes, participation. Ordinarily they cannot carry firearms in the host nations jurisdiction. Obviously the US carries a big stick and many nations allow exceptions. I recall there was some real tense moments when FBI agents went to Mexico to investigate the brutal murder of DEA agent Kiki Camarena. It all started at the airport when the Mexicans demanded the FBI surrender their weapons. The FBI had a tough go of it investigating the case due to jurisdictional issues and the ever present corruption systemic in Mexican law enforcement and military. Many of the issues “on the ground” had to be resolved at the highest levels in both governments. Again though, like it or not, the Mexican government controlled that situation as they were the sovereign power.Also, in intelligence matters, overseas, the CIA is the agency responsible, not the FBI, so even with host nation approval, US law dictates the CIA has jurisdiction, not the FBI.