• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When is breaking an entering not a crime?

Looks like it did happen...

... and we should all be concerned about the Secret Service entirely overstepping their bounds and trampling on the rights of the business owner, there is no right afforded to the Secret Service to break and enter into businesses for their own purposes, attempt to cover up their actions, and leave the business entirely vulnerable after doing so.

If you are not concerned about this sort of thing you are part of the problem.
im concerned about legitimate sources.
 
Do you have a credible source?

  • Overall, we rate The Right Scoop Right biased and Questionable based on the promotion of propaganda and conspiracies and the use of poor sourcing techniques, and numerous failed fact checks.


Detailed Report​

Questionable Reasoning: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, Propaganda, Fake News, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: RIGHT

Secret Service busted into a salon to let people use the bathroom during a Kamala Harris fundraiser, business owner says​


  • Secret Service taped over a Berkshire business's security camera while Kamala Harris was in Mass.
  • Soon after, strangers came into the salon — which was closed and locked — to use the bathroom.
  • The business owner said she felt "violated."

Business Insider
 
I am concerned about the Secret Service breaking law, sidestepping the Constitution, and apparently doing so with impunity.
the SS and other government agencies are going to do what they do. We have NO say in what they do. But back to my point, for discussion purposes, we need credible links.
 
the SS and other government agencies are going to do what they do. We have NO say in what they do. But back to my point, for discussion purposes, we need credible links.

Maybe we should increase the democratization of our government and citizen oversight?
 
If they broke the law they need to be held accountable.
Each youtube video would have to have the facts verified.

They often aren’t. Most officers get qualified immunity, others only get fired, not charged for violating the law and citizen rights.

And to reiterate: Trump supports giving police absolute immunity.
 
the SS and other government agencies are going to do what they do. We have NO say in what they do. But back to my point, for discussion purposes, we need credible links.

Is MSN not a credible link & source? It is time to come down and make a credible argument that this did not happen.

As for the rest of your post, it reeks of government power abuse forgiveness.
 

Secret Service busted into a salon to let people use the bathroom during a Kamala Harris fundraiser, business owner says​


  • Secret Service taped over a Berkshire business's security camera while Kamala Harris was in Mass.
  • Soon after, strangers came into the salon — which was closed and locked — to use the bathroom.
  • The business owner said she felt "violated."

Business Insider
Thank you.

I don't know why @Mycroft never starts with valid sources
 
They often aren’t. Most officers get qualified immunity, others only get fired, not charged for violating the law and citizen rights.

And to reiterate: Trump supports giving police absolute immunity.
Guess he can say that but there is little he can do. That would probably be a state by state process?
The Supreme court has ruled many times.

Supreme Court Again Clarifies Qualified Immunity Protection for Peace Officers​


Public officials and peace officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless they knew or reasonably should have known that the action taken within their sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the plaintiff (Harlow v. Fitzgerald [1982] 457 U.S. 800). The Supreme Court in Harlow went on to apply an objective reasonableness standard for protection from liability, stating, “Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” (Harlow at 818). For a plaintiff to overcome qualified immunity, they must prove that the constitutional right allegedly violated by an officer was “clearly established.”
 
Back
Top Bottom