I was reading this on the local Norwegian newspaper. It says that when Obama was in Norway to get his Nobel Peace Prize on 10th December. The police broke into a house which they said had a window open and was near the American Embassy. So they had to break in and close the window, change the locks and then leave a note on the door to get in touch with them.
A small child who came home from school sat in the cellar for an hour because he couldn’t get in, same happened with his mother who didn’t have a cell phone and whenever they called the police they said Obama is here we are busy obviously.
But the reason for posting this is, when is it that the police can get in and decide that the privacy of other’s isn’t “private” enough. Do discuss what you think..
December 11th, 2009 at 7:07 am
Norway is a police state. Privacy is nothing more than an illusion! Yes, we do have laws to protect privacy, but just try to bring issues like this to court…..
December 11th, 2009 at 7:22 am
Oh please, the curtains was closed and window suddenly opened when Obama was driving by, and the police coudn't get in contact with anyone inside the apartment. Could easily been someone who wanted to shoot Obama. And if the problem here was that the 11 year old child had to wait an hour for her mother to get home I laugh. When I was around that age I forgot my key home plenty of times and had to wait for my parents to get home, sometimes for several hours – so nothing to cry about in the newspapers.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:31 am
Yeah, right! The window suddenly opened….do you believe in Santa too? The norwegian police are known to add “facts” to stories to make them look acceptable….and that's a fact!!!
December 11th, 2009 at 8:07 am
Norway is a police state. Privacy is nothing more than an illusion! Yes, we do have laws to protect privacy, but just try to bring issues like this to court…..
December 11th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Oh please, the curtains was closed and window suddenly opened when Obama was driving by, and the police coudn't get in contact with anyone inside the apartment. Could easily been someone who wanted to shoot Obama. And if the problem here was that the 11 year old child had to wait an hour for her mother to get home I laugh. When I was around that age I forgot my key home plenty of times and had to wait for my parents to get home, sometimes for several hours – so nothing to cry about in the newspapers.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:31 am
Yeah, right! The window suddenly opened….do you believe in Santa too? The norwegian police are known to add “facts” to stories to make them look acceptable….and that's a fact!!!
December 11th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Couldn't agree more!
December 11th, 2009 at 8:43 am
This sound really bit “over” – I mean alright that security is needed when it come to Obama the president of America but It's the irresponsibility in this whole case that's the sadest part, when they first changed the lock etc they should have been avalible whenever anyone actually did get in touch with them reading their note. Nobody should need to “wait” to get into their own home just because Obama is here.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Couldn't agree more!
December 11th, 2009 at 9:43 am
This sound really bit “over” – I mean alright that security is needed when it come to Obama the president of America but It's the irresponsibility in this whole case that's the sadest part, when they first changed the lock etc they should have been avalible whenever anyone actually did get in touch with them reading their note. Nobody should need to “wait” to get into their own home just because Obama is here.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:47 am
I must say that I find it more realistic that a window in an old building (and I know for a fact that most the windows in that street could need a repair), than a theory that the police decided to harass the family and start planting evidence. By the way, I'd love to hear more about how the police likes to “add facts to stories”. Maybe you could give us some examples?
December 11th, 2009 at 10:47 am
I must say that I find it more realistic that a window in an old building (and I know for a fact that most the windows in that street could need a repair), than a theory that the police decided to harass the family and start planting evidence. By the way, I'd love to hear more about how the police likes to “add facts to stories”. Maybe you could give us some examples?
December 11th, 2009 at 10:50 am
A window does not just open…it does need a force to do so…plain physics…it's therefore rather unlikely to occur “just like that” no matter how old the window is….and nobody claimed “that the police decided to harass the family and start planting evidence”. The stupidity needed to write such nonsense is truly telling and would normally prevent me from giving you a reply.
And, if you really want to know about the credibility of our beloved police…simply do your own research…but I guess that's asking to much. I'll give you a small clue: Johs Andenes (perhaps you have heard the name before?) stated in connection with the “boomerang cases” in Bergen that it must be expected that a policeman will lie to cover for an colleague (meaning that statements in such cases should be disregarded). You may want to start there…and then do a little research…But I'll admit “known to add facts” was a bit inaccurate, I should have said: known to add facts, withholding important evidence, law abuse (meaning; knowingly claim in accordance with law in a cases that the law was not intended) and in general breaking the law. To sum it up: It's simply an illusion that the police are somehow more thrust worthy than Mr. Average Joe.
It's also another fact that one of the reasons why it's so hard to convict policemen for breaking the law is that the authorities has given guidelines that values people's trusth in the police higher importance than justice!
December 11th, 2009 at 11:06 am
The first thing one should do in such cases is to check what the law says and then ask, did the police act in accordance with the law (and then, one may discuss if a change of the law is necessary)?
Grunnlovens paragraf 102, straffeprosesslovens paragraf 192 samt EMK artikkel 6 og 8.
If one sums this up one will have (simplified, and as an absolute minimum, in reality more will be needed, much thanks to rulings in the EU based on EMK 6 &
: The police may enter a private home if there is a probability of finding criminal activity.
Was that the case?
December 11th, 2009 at 11:27 am
IT IS THE NEW WORLD ORDER !!
IT TELLS A LOT ABOUT THE WORLD WE LIVE IN AND THE PEOPLE WHO RUN THIS !
WHAT POLICE,THEY RUN POLICE ,YOU WILL SEE THAT WHEN THEY CLOSE EVERYTHING ,WITHOUT CONSIDERING OTHER (SIMPLE)PEOPLE LIFE.
NOTHING TO DO WITH THE THINGS CALLED “FREEDOM OF SPEECH” OR THE SO CALLED FREEDOM ! IT JUST REFLECTS THAT US IS THE “BOSS” OF ALL BOSSES . WHATEVER THEY SAY OR TELL YOU TO DO,YOU BETTER DO IT OR YOU WILL HAVE A MISERABLE LIFE !
I WONDER WHAT WAS THE REAL AGENDA BEHIND THE CURTAINS OF THE NOBEL “PEACE” AWARD .
PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THIS AS GRANTED ,THINK PEOPLE WHY ??
December 11th, 2009 at 11:50 am
A window does not just open…it does need a force to do so…plain physics…it's therefore rather unlikely to occur “just like that” no matter how old the window is….and nobody claimed “that the police decided to harass the family and start planting evidence”. The stupidity needed to write such nonsense is truly telling and would normally prevent me from giving you a reply.
And, if you really want to know about the credibility of our beloved police…simply do your own research…but I guess that's asking to much. I'll give you a small clue: Johs Andenes (perhaps you have heard the name before?) stated in connection with the “boomerang cases” in Bergen that it must be expected that a policeman will lie to cover for an colleague (meaning that statements in such cases should be disregarded). You may want to start there…and then do a little research…But I'll admit “known to add facts” was a bit inaccurate, I should have said: known to add facts, withholding important evidence, law abuse (meaning; knowingly claim in accordance with law in a cases that the law was not intended) and in general breaking the law. To sum it up: It's simply an illusion that the police are somehow more thrust worthy than Mr. Average Joe.
It's also another fact that one of the reasons why it's so hard to convict policemen for breaking the law is that the authorities has given guidelines that values people's trusth in the police higher importance than justice!
December 11th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
The first thing one should do in such cases is to check what the law says and then ask, did the police act in accordance with the law (and then, one may discuss if a change of the law is necessary)?
Grunnlovens paragraf 102, straffeprosesslovens paragraf 192 samt EMK artikkel 6 og 8.
If one sums this up one will have (simplified, and as an absolute minimum, in reality more will be needed, much thanks to rulings in the EU based on EMK 6 &
: The police may enter a private home if there is a probability of finding criminal activity.
Was that the case?
December 11th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
IT IS THE NEW WORLD ORDER !!
IT TELLS A LOT ABOUT THE WORLD WE LIVE IN AND THE PEOPLE WHO RUN THIS !
WHAT POLICE,THEY RUN POLICE ,YOU WILL SEE THAT WHEN THEY CLOSE EVERYTHING ,WITHOUT CONSIDERING OTHER (SIMPLE)PEOPLE LIFE.
NOTHING TO DO WITH THE THINGS CALLED “FREEDOM OF SPEECH” OR THE SO CALLED FREEDOM ! IT JUST REFLECTS THAT US IS THE “BOSS” OF ALL BOSSES . WHATEVER THEY SAY OR TELL YOU TO DO,YOU BETTER DO IT OR YOU WILL HAVE A MISERABLE LIFE !
I WONDER WHAT WAS THE REAL AGENDA BEHIND THE CURTAINS OF THE NOBEL “PEACE” AWARD .
PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THIS AS GRANTED ,THINK PEOPLE WHY ??
December 11th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
I guess that was the reply because the police felt that the open window might be an issue. But since the lady had a muslim name i guess the police likes to do a two plus two. They might have thought 'oh man the window is near the embassy and oh no its a muslim name it has to be a criminal'
December 11th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Anno as jarl said i guess a window does need some force to open. But lets see since this is not such a huge case yet does show what police can do when they really want to do something their way.
December 11th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
I guess that was the reply because the police felt that the open window might be an issue. But since the lady had a muslim name i guess the police likes to do a two plus two. They might have thought 'oh man the window is near the embassy and oh no its a muslim name it has to be a criminal'
December 11th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Anno as jarl said i guess a window does need some force to open. But lets see since this is not such a huge case yet does show what police can do when they really want to do something their way.
December 11th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Well, law I dont know much about but I do know that it's not right to let anyone suffer in this cold weather just because a president is on visit N they are to “busy” so can't help them at that moment. As said strict security is a good N needed sometimes,N yes police might enter a private home if any probability of anything fishy criminal activity, but then they also have to make sure they themself don't commit a “crime” by stopping innocent people to enter their own homes.
December 11th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Well, law I dont know much about but I do know that it's not right to let anyone suffer in this cold weather just because a president is on visit N they are to “busy” so can't help them at that moment. As said strict security is a good N needed sometimes,N yes police might enter a private home if any probability of anything fishy criminal activity, but then they also have to make sure they themself don't commit a “crime” by stopping innocent people to enter their own homes.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Just a small note: “probability” means above 50% chance or to say it in norwegian “sannsynlighetsovervekt”. (And for the record: this is not my opinion but a wiev that is regarded to be the correct understanding – my view is “my home is my castle”….need I say more…;-)
December 11th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
It wouldn't surprise me if you're right. It's a known fact that the law is not the same for all, either it's because you have a foreign name or you have a low social status or some other “disadvantage”. It's also a lot safer to bend the law a bit when dealing with people who is not very likely to press charges, and the police is of course very much aware of the fact that the vast majority of people will always believe the police over a “social misfit” or a foreigner (unless the foreigner has a strong social status of course).
It's also a fact that the law will never be fully equal for all – money, social status even looks does matter quite a lot research show – but that does not mean that we simply have to accept it. It's absolutely crucial that we all constantly keep an watchful eye to every aspect of the law system, if not, it will for sure develop in to something very few of us will find beneficial.
Especially if an “enemy” is the victim of wrong-doings, you need to stand up and make your view clear. The law is not something one can choose to support when ever it suits oneself. Unfortunately, I think the debate surrounding this case clearly shows that too many people let their disliking of somali/foreigners/muslims cloud their better judgement. That truly saddens me.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Just a small note: “probability” means above 50% chance or to say it in norwegian “sannsynlighetsovervekt”. (And for the record: this is not my opinion but a wiev that is regarded to be the correct understanding – my view is “my home is my castle”….need I say more…;-)
December 11th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Hmmm Probabily not
December 11th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
It wouldn't surprise me if you're right. It's a known fact that the law is not the same for all, either it's because you have a foreign name or you have a low social status or some other “disadvantage”. It's also a lot safer to bend the law a bit when dealing with people who is not very likely to press charges, and the police is of course very much aware of the fact that the vast majority of people will always believe the police over a “social misfit” or a foreigner (unless the foreigner has a strong social status of course).
It's also a fact that the law will never be fully equal for all – money, social status even looks does matter quite a lot research show – but that does not mean that we simply have to accept it. It's absolutely crucial that we all constantly keep an watchful eye to every aspect of the law system, if not, it will for sure develop in to something very few of us will find beneficial.
Especially if an “enemy” is the victim of wrong-doings, you need to stand up and make your view clear. The law is not something one can choose to support when ever it suits oneself. Unfortunately, I think the debate surrounding this case clearly shows that too many people let their disliking of somali/foreigners/muslims cloud their better judgement. That truly saddens me.
December 11th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Yups laws can sometime be a bit diff for diff people. And it's good that most of us atleast see the tiny loopholes.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Hmmm Probabily not
December 11th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Yups laws can sometime be a bit diff for diff people. And it's good that most of us atleast see the tiny loopholes.