An action is considered flagrant when it is obvious and indisputable. Thus, if someone claims to "the Defense committed a flagrant foul" in the context of a football game, it is expressing that such action is obvious and there is no any discussion on the matter. The opposite of flagrant would consequently everything that is debatable, interpretable, doubtful or opinion. Following an illustrative example, if a person says something and then says the opposite, one could argue that there is a blatant contradiction in his words. As to the etymology of this word comes from the Latin flagrare, which means burning or still hot. The etymology of this word is a reminder that it also means today, i.e., that something is happening at this very moment. It is worth mentioning that the Latin expression "red-handed" also comes from the verb flagrare (as it is known in fragranti want to say at the same time, for example "I caught him in fragranti, at the very moment in which got hand in the drawer" which implies that the person who noted this fact has no doubt about what happened.
Flagrante delicto
In the area of law there is the figure of the flagrante delicto, which occurs when that violates the law is surprised by the police at the time that commits the offence. This feature is very important, as it means that the police has irrefutable proof of criminal action. From the perspective of law, refers to the Act, the circumstances in which someone is observed directly in the execution of a crime. The circumstances of flagrante delicto is exceptional, because normally the police presence not crimes but later investigates them. In this way, fragrant crime figure is presented as a unique feature, though so be considered as such it is that a number of requirements are: 1) must occur in an objective manner at any given time and be observed in unquestionable way by a police officer, 2) the offender must be identified with absolute clarity and 3) that evidence of facts , police were forced to intervene. While the concept of flagrante delicto is not complex in terms of their understanding, that does not mean that occasionally debates and discussions about its correct interpretation and its legal consequences. Let's see this with another example: police considered likely to some people who are manipulating drug to then smuggle them there in a home. Faced with this situation, the police knows that it will only capture alleged traffickers if it enters the home. However, the entry into the home without the relevant authorisation from a judge is illegal and only referred to in the event that the offence committed is flagrant, something which does not happen in this case, because police believe that most likely is committing an offense, but a high probability does not act. As a result, in this case police not could come at home according to what the law dictates.