View Full Version : Commiefornia Police Kick in Door and Taze Person Filming Them
Cylinder Head
05-14-2013, 12:43
Okay so a few questions here. The police in question said they were responding to a domestic violence call. Does that automatically give them probable cause? Is this the type of overreaching crap they're trying to do here?
http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=e8a4cfd49b04
Singlestack
05-14-2013, 12:45
Just ask Byte.......[shithitsfan]
SuperiorDG
05-14-2013, 13:15
Oh dear. In before the lock.
BushMasterBoy
05-14-2013, 13:17
Teaches me I need a better defense against ANY type of intruder. I'd bash the cops, but they have EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES excuse under the law.(maybe I dunno) Anyways, do stupid shit, win stupid prizes. Yes the USA is a police state, get used to it. Yes, the state will find an excuse to violate your rights, read the NDAA. The state knows better than you, they educated you! Now turn in your high capacity magazines and light up your bong...
OneGuy67
05-14-2013, 13:18
Need more information on the call and the circumstances leading up to the contact before any comment can be made concerning the video.
BushMasterBoy
05-14-2013, 13:23
http://officialmagicpg.com/california-police-kick-in-door-and-tase-man-in-own-home-video/
Need more information on the call and the circumstances leading up to the contact before any comment can be made concerning the video.
It still doesn't excuse kicking in a door, guns drawn, and then tazing the owners who obviously posed no threat. While there may be an legitimate reason for entering the house without a warrant, I'd say the officers used excessive force. If they really were there on a domestic violence call, they tazed the supposed victim as soon as they entered the house! So much for protecting her...
OneGuy67
05-14-2013, 13:39
It still doesn't excuse kicking in a door, guns drawn, and then tazing the owners who obviously posed no threat. While there may be an legitimate reason for entering the house without a warrant, I'd say the officers used excessive force. If they really were there on a domestic violence call, they tazed the supposed victim as soon as they entered the house! So much for protecting her...
And you are basing your opinion on a 90 second video with no additional information? The "article" posted by BushMasterBoy doesn't cover it very well either. Who called the police? What was stated at that time? Did the agency have previous contact (history) with these two parties? I don't know these answers, which would influence how I handled the contact. The video certainly doesn't provide any answers either.
Bailey Guns
05-14-2013, 13:53
There is no way anyone can form an educated opinion on what happened and whether or not the police actions were right or wrong from that video or the accompanying "article" . If you think you can then you are not being objective. It's that simple. Now I'll just sit back and wait for the usual suspects to start with their "oh, typical response from Bailey Guns" bullshit even though it's clear I'm not taking anyone's side in this.
StagLefty
05-14-2013, 13:56
^ Typical response JK [ROFL2]
And you are basing your opinion on a 90 second video with no additional information? The "article" posted by BushMasterBoy doesn't cover it very well either. Who called the police? What was stated at that time? Did the agency have previous contact (history) with these two parties? I don't know these answers, which would influence how I handled the contact. The video certainly doesn't provide any answers either.
I agree the video doesn't tell the whole story but that 90 seconds does say a lot. If the cops could carry on a little conversation with the owners, while peering in the door's window, holster their side arms, then tell the owners they were going kick in the door, etc - I'd say they didn't feel they were in any real danger. Was tazing really warranted? This looks like police officers showing the owners who was in charge. A comply or else kind of action. The cops could have just as easily talked with the owners to assess if there was indeed any domestic violence issues that required further action.
Looks more like US Marshall service entering into apprehend fugitive.
BTW... Those Taser X26 works real well.
BushMasterBoy
05-14-2013, 14:11
I think it is just what was reported in my last post. Neighbors call police on possible domestic violence or loud noise. Cops show up to investigate. People in the house are non cooperative. Cops kick in the door and start tazing. What is there not to understand? If the cops think someone is going to be harmed, they will break in to prevent it.
Bailey Guns
05-14-2013, 14:16
I agree the video doesn't tell the whole story but that 90 seconds does say a lot. If the cops could carry on a little conversation with the owners, while peering in the door's window, holster their side arms, then tell the owners they were going kick in the door, etc - I'd say they didn't feel they were in any real danger. Was tazing really warranted? This looks like police officers showing the owners who was in charge. A comply or else kind of action. The cops could have just as easily talked with the owners to assess if there was indeed any domestic violence issues that required further action.
At what point do you stop asking and stop telling? Sometimes when you disregard a lawful order (and with the info provided we have no reason to believe it wasn't lawful) you get tazed. They were more than patient. Maybe the guy felt like he was in the right, too. Maybe he was. You simply can't tell from the video.
We should probably just issue the cops fluffy pillows so when they have to deal with people no one will get hurt.
clublights
05-14-2013, 14:18
We should probably just issue the cops fluffy pillows so when they have to deal with people no one will get hurt.
Even a fluffy pillow can out an eye out.......
LOL
Bailey Guns
05-14-2013, 14:19
The cops can carry safety glasses and give them to the person they're going to pillow fight with. They'll have plenty of room on their duty belts since they won't be carrying tazers and guns and OC and extra mags.
OneGuy67
05-14-2013, 14:22
Like Bailey Guns, I'm out. Too many arm chair quarterbacks. There just are too many questions not answered by the very limited information gleaned from the video and a biased "article" to make a rational decision on the actions taken.
Boadie30
05-14-2013, 14:29
There is no way anyone can form an educated opinion on what happened and whether or not the police actions were right or wrong from that video or the accompanying "article" . If you think you can then you are not being objective. It's that simple. Now I'll just sit back and wait for the usual suspects to start with their "oh, typical response from Bailey Guns" bullshit even though it's clear I'm not taking anyone's side in this.
Agreed... I deleted the rest...so I just agree... lol
clublights
05-14-2013, 14:34
The problem with 99% of these videos is:
A. When the video is started.. seems lots of times important parts are missed.
B. selective editing .
Taking this video at face value. assuming there is not more to the story .. I feel the officers were in the wrong.
Knowing there are likely missing pieces to this puzzle the officers were probably justified with what they did, HOWEVER doesn't make it RIGHT.
Other questions. why didn't the homeowner step out to talk to the officers? ( of course if the article is true.. I'd not wanna step out to talk to 3 cops with guns drawn either... )
What EXACTLY was the call ? what did the caller say ? What was said between the officers and the homeowner before the video started?
Heck the other day at a bar I do work for a guy was drunk and out of hand we had to remove him from the bar, at which point he popped me in the face once and while on the phone with 911 tried to hit me a second time, at which point we took him to the ground and held till police showed up. if you had started that video ( or edited it) to exclude him hitting me and trying to hit me the second time you would have seen video of two big guys tackling and pinning a small guy to the ground. Would have looked bad for me.
See what I'm getting at ?
And you are basing your opinion on a 90 second video with no additional information? The "article" posted by BushMasterBoy doesn't cover it very well either. Who called the police? What was stated at that time? Did the agency have previous contact (history) with these two parties? I don't know these answers, which would influence how I handled the contact. The video certainly doesn't provide any answers either.
While I do yeild to your experience in that field- I think the question most are posing here, and again, we don't know the full story- but if all parties occupying the home are stating that the police were called in error, there was no reasonable grounds for anyone to suspect a DV was taking place, then what right do the cops have to illegally kick the door down and enter the home? To the best of my knowledge, none. Which would then lead me to believe that the moment they kicked my door down, all officers involved were violating my rights and subject to litigious action against the individuals and the department (unless they posed a direct threat to my/family's life, at which point it would be handled on a case by case basis).
ETA: Of course that's only hypothetically speaking if they came to my house in error on a DV call. In this particular case, no idea what happened prior to the filming, but it would appear, at face value, that no DV was taking place and without a warrant or probable cause, LEOs cannot enter your home without your permission, unless exigent circumstances exist- which I saw no cause for them to kick the door down- but again, I didn't see much in that video to sway either way.
Bailey Guns
05-14-2013, 14:39
There could also be the body of a woman he just stabbed to death in a bedroom in the home and that's why he didn't want the police coming in. Threads like this with the ensuing speculation accomplish absolutely nothing positive for anyone unless they have an agenda of some sort.
ETA: We just heard of the Cleveland kidnapper case. Everyone's pissin' and moanin' about that, too, because the cops were called to the area a couple of times in the past and didn't find anything to act on. FFS...
Bailey Guns
05-14-2013, 14:40
And the warrantless exceptions have been covered here over and over. If the police acted in error there are avenues for the homeowner to pursue.
clublights
05-14-2013, 14:47
There could also be the body of a woman he just stabbed to death in a bedroom in the home and that's why he didn't want the police coming in. Threads like this with the ensuing speculation accomplish absolutely nothing positive for anyone unless they have an agenda of some sort.
ETA: We just heard of the Cleveland kidnapper case. Everyone's pissin' and moanin' about that, too, because the cops were called to the area a couple of times in the past and didn't find anything to act on. FFS...
I thought you being a former LEO know that you are expected to be psychic .. and KNOW when that stuff is going on . and which door to kick in .. DUH..
Whether or not the cops used excessive force is irrelevant. The police officers will get a nice paid vacation while internal affairs conducts an investigation. At the end of the investigation the officers will have been found to have been in the right and they will be allowed to return to work.
Bailey Guns
05-14-2013, 14:54
Based solely on the video: They won't get time off for this. And they shouldn't.
At what point do you stop asking and stop telling? Sometimes when you disregard a lawful order (and with the info provided we have no reason to believe it wasn't lawful) you get tazed.
When I'm in my home I don't let anyone tell me to do anything (except for my wife [Eek2]).
I'm not saying the police weren't proper in entering the home. Not even saying they weren't technically correct in tazing the occupants. I'm just asking if they really needed to go that far, especially when these people are in their own home and, while being uncooperative, they are not threatening anyone. And are you saying not letting the police into your home, when they don't have a warrant, is disobeying a lawful order? Not baiting I just don't understand what you are referring to as the lawful order? Last I read I don't have to let anyone from the govt into my house unless they have a warrant signed by a judge.
RblDiver
05-14-2013, 15:35
The cops can carry safety glasses and give them to the person they're going to pillow fight with.
Safety goggles are a lie; mine gave me a nasty cut the other weekend!
(Granted, it was due to me learning that, while I knew you need to keep your eye back from the scope, you need to keep it quite a ways back from said scope) (Had to learn that lesson twice that day)
Bailey Guns
05-14-2013, 16:09
When I'm in my home I don't let anyone tell me to do anything (except for my wife [Eek2]).
I'm not saying the police weren't proper in entering the home. Not even saying they weren't technically correct in tazing the occupants. I'm just asking if they really needed to go that far, especially when these people are in their own home and, while being uncooperative, they are not threatening anyone. And are you saying not letting the police into your home, when they don't have a warrant, is disobeying a lawful order? Not baiting I just don't understand what you are referring to as the lawful order? Last I read I don't have to let anyone from the govt into my house unless they have a warrant signed by a judge.
I'm not saying their entry was proper or improper either. There isn't enough information to make that decision. Therefore, we can't really answer if they needed to go that far.
And if you've never read about warrantless exceptions, you haven't read much. There's tons of case law and information out there (even in numerous threads on this forum) describing when police can enter your home without a warrant. And when they do come in you basically have 3 options:
You can act like this guy and get tazed and go to jail
You can act worse and have something worse happen and go to jail...with a possible stop at the ER
You can adamantly but politely voice your disapproval of their actions, request to talk with a supervisor, and then cooperate and settle the issue later with the help of an attorney
Make no mistake...if the po-po do come into your house lawfully, with or without a warrant, they WILL be telling you what you're gonna do. There are a lot of chest thumping tough guys on here who might tell you differently. They're wrong. I ran into a lot of those types over 15 years. They were very vocal in their dislike for me and my actions (or other officers)...all the way to the county jail.
Bailey Guns
05-14-2013, 16:10
Safety goggles are a lie; mine gave me a nasty cut the other weekend!
(Granted, it was due to me learning that, while I knew you need to keep your eye back from the scope, you need to keep it quite a ways back from said scope) (Had to learn that lesson twice that day)
It's one of those shooter rites of passage. You're not alone.
DingleBerns
05-14-2013, 16:53
[shit-happens] Need more info...
came in here to bitch about the popo baily made some convincing arguments im out :D
Geology Rocks
05-14-2013, 18:55
ask, tell, make
10mm-man
05-14-2013, 20:13
Still not locked yet? In b4 the lock..... My bed is it don't make it to past page 6.. Any takers?
Been around long? The 31st Chairborne, CO AR-15 Division, is always at war! Reason, logic, and objectivity be damned, those tyrannical jackbooted thugs are violating your rights again. No seriously, I made a youtube video to prove it.
That there is sig worthy. [LOL]
The cops should have backed down from what I see. De-escalated the situation. Tazing a guy in his home, just not right when there is no indication he had done anything wrong. Find a body, beat up person, things are different. Trying to protect the sovereignty of your home, cops need to back off until real probable cause is established. Cops grabbing at their guns, I am going to be worried myself.
I didn't even watch the video. But in LA they should be happy all they got was the Han Solo blaster. If they were in a Toyota it'd been different. Don't argue with the police, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/ex-cop-manhunt-newspaper-delivery-women-shot.html
Goodburbon
05-14-2013, 21:03
Safety goggles are a lie; mine gave me a nasty cut the other weekend!
(Granted, it was due to me learning that, while I knew you need to keep your eye back from the scope, you need to keep it quite a ways back from said scope) (Had to learn that lesson twice that day)
Off topic but useful
http://crossfiresafety.com/index.php/catalog/foam-lined-sealed-protection
Protects from injury from stuff like this
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=163551646997631&set=vb.100000283914916&type=2&theater
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Great-Kazoo
05-14-2013, 21:05
The cops should have backed down from what I see. De-escalated the situation. Tazing a guy in his home, just not right when there is no indication he had done anything wrong. Find a body, beat up person, things are different. Trying to protect the sovereignty of your home, cops need to back off until real probable cause is established. Cops grabbing at their guns, I am going to be worried myself.
Did you see the person on the ground with multiple stab wounds? Did you see the knife inside their waist band? Did you see anything other than what you wanted to see?
I ask because everyone "sees" what they want to based on pre conceived bias. Until you see something from the LE side, you are seeing a possibly edited clip and or not getting as Paul Harvey would say. The rest of the Story
Goodburbon
05-14-2013, 21:15
I dunno, I see enough.
It must be procedure to bust down doors and whip everybody's ass to make sure everyone is ok if you get a domestic call and are refused entry.
:D
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
OneGuy67
05-14-2013, 22:01
Been around long? The 31st Chairborne, CO AR-15 Division, is always at war! Reason, logic, and objectivity be damned, those tyrannical jackbooted thugs are violating your rights again. No seriously, I made a youtube video to prove it.
Been around this forum long enough to know when it isn't worth my time to argue. Once upon a time, I thought I could educate those about law enforcement and the why we do the things we do, but those days are gone. Now, I just applaud when people like Bailey Guns won't back down and present good arguments based upon his many years in uniform.
Did you see the person on the ground with multiple stab wounds? Did you see the knife inside their waist band? Did you see anything other than what you wanted to see?
I ask because everyone "sees" what they want to based on pre conceived bias. Until you see something from the LE side, you are seeing a possibly edited clip and or not getting as Paul Harvey would say. The rest of the Story
They would have been screaming about anything they thought they saw. They would have answered his simple and legal question but they did not like somebody standing up to them. It became about ego and in your own home... you should ALWAYS win that one. The home owner was asking for a warrant and complying with orders except opening the door, hands were up showing no aggressiveness. If they really thought there was a danger to anybody but were not sure, they could have backed off, gotten a warrant (after stating their probable cause to the judge) and then entered the home (per the Constitution, that being the 4th Amendment). That was not what happened. This was what many of us fear as a police state. I am a cop and I can do anything I want. That is BS.
On this one there is no "what everyone sees".
As a kid, my Mom was with a guy that would get violent with all of us and when she went for the phone he would rip it out of the wall. Once a neighbor heard him bashing her head into the wall and called the cops and then screamed that they were on the way. This guy flipped out even worse and threatened to kill us all if my Mom didnt straighten up and make them go away. I remember the terror of that night to this very day and can only imagine that there are SERIOUS reasons why LE needs access to the house to ascertain if everything is truly copacetic or if people are being threatened into denying the violence. With the amount of women being beaten or killed every day in this country, I would think Domestic Violence isnt something Cops are going to fuck around with. I've heard they are some of the most potentially volitile calls they get. Like with most of these self taped interactions I've seen, I suspect there is more to the angle than innocently protesting a violation of constitutional rights.
Cylinder Head
05-14-2013, 22:58
Maybe Bailey Guns can answer my question, which I will elaborate further on. With most domestic violence calls (as this one is reported to be), when the cops show up, too often doesn't the beat-ee either recant or altogether pretend like nothing is wrong? I would imagine this would be a situation where exigent circumstances would suggest that the police enter to investigate further.
DingleBerns
05-14-2013, 23:07
Maybe Bailey Guns can answer my question, which I will elaborate further on. With most domestic violence calls (as this one is reported to be), when the cops show up, too often doesn't the beat-ee either recant or altogether pretend like nothing is wrong? I would imagine this would be a situation where exigent circumstances would suggest that the police enter to investigate further.
Sometimes, but we have to go off of evidence present, what they say, and any witnesses. Domestic violence crimes are mandatory arrests even if the victim doesn't want to charge them.
Sometimes, but we have to go off of evidence present, what they say, and any witnesses. Domestic violence crimes are mandatory arrests even if the victim doesn't want to charge them.
I thought this was if one of the two parties in the house was called? My X and I were "wrestling" in our living room when we had the same call... The cops who showed up got a door answered by a couple of half naked people......... No one got arrested then. They understood what was happening though. So, what gives? EDIT: We lived in an apartment, upstairs apartment. Neighbors heard "screaming", and thumping....
GilpinGuy
05-15-2013, 01:37
Back around 1997 I had an officer..oh shit forget it....
It worked out well.
Bailey Guns
05-15-2013, 06:15
Maybe Bailey Guns can answer my question, which I will elaborate further on. With most domestic violence calls (as this one is reported to be), when the cops show up, too often doesn't the beat-ee either recant or altogether pretend like nothing is wrong? I would imagine this would be a situation where exigent circumstances would suggest that the police enter to investigate further.
Yep. Happens in what I'd call a high-percentage of domestic calls, especially with chronic abusers. Like DingleBerms said, sometimes the cops can help, sometimes they can't based on evidence...which oftentimes includes the victim's own statements that the abuser didn't do anything.
Threads like this really push my buttons. That video was presented here with one purpose in mind...to get an emotional response and to put the police actions in the worst light possible. It always works with this crowd. Everyone here's a damn expert in police procedure, even if they have no formal training.
Even if they had probably cause to kick in the door... Which they probably did. I don't think they had a right to taze them.
They'll get a slap on the wrist.
DingleBerns
05-15-2013, 07:42
I thought this was if one of the two parties in the house was called? My X and I were "wrestling" in our living room when we had the same call... The cops who showed up got a door answered by a couple of half naked people......... No one got arrested then. They understood what was happening though. So, what gives? EDIT: We lived in an apartment, upstairs apartment. Neighbors heard "screaming", and thumping....
I don't know who called as I didn't read the story, just watched the video. Wrestling isn't a crime so nothing happened to you guys, :).
Great-Kazoo
05-15-2013, 07:47
Yep. Happens in what I'd call a high-percentage of domestic calls, especially with chronic abusers. Like DingleBerms said, sometimes the cops can help, sometimes they can't based on evidence...which oftentimes includes the victim's own statements that the abuser didn't do anything.
Threads like this really push my buttons. That video was presented here with one purpose in mind...to get an emotional response and to put the police actions in the worst light possible. It always works with this crowd. Everyone here's a damn expert in police procedure, even if they have no formal training.
The biggest complaints or criticism seems to originate from those who were never on the job. Or have no one in LE in the family, who see and hear the "other side". I had the same criticism when i wrenched on 4 & 2 wheeled vehicles, tattoos, etc.
"Well i understand you did this, BUT couldn't you have done ...........this?"
Byte Stryke
05-15-2013, 08:58
Just ask Byte.......[shithitsfan]
wtf?
Still not locked yet? In b4 the lock..... My bed is it don't make it to past page 6.. Any takers?
I will take that bet [pick-me]
Okay, not poking with a stick so don't take it the wrong way- this is more for Bailey, OneGuy and DenverLEO: What happens when some noise originates from your home, your neighbors are assholes, and LE shows up at your door on a suspected DV call and there was nothing of the sort going down? You don't want them coming in your home- for fear of someone being hauled away- but you also want to be cooperative. Tell the female to step outside with the officers and the male stay at the door not allowing entrance? Is that sufficient? What happens if they want to come in? I see this as a thin line, the LEOs have a job to do, they have reports on the call to write, they have supervisors to answer to, they have procedure. But where do you draw the line between their responsibility and your rights? I only ask because I've heard of it happening before (Army buddy's uncle, reportedly, spent a night in jail plus several thousand $ on a phony DV charge because the neighbors called 911 on him and his wife moving furniture).
Bailey Guns
05-15-2013, 10:00
Well I can't speak for the other guys but I'd say, "Fuck you", kick the door down then taze everyone. Just because, you know, that's how jackbooted pigs with badges roll.
Well I can't speak for the other guys but I'd say, "Fuck you", kick the door down then taze everyone. Just because, you know, that's how jackbooted pigs with badges roll.
[ROFL1] You should write the script for the new Robocop movie, it'd be a lot more exciting than anything Hollywierd hacks can come up with!
Kraven251
05-15-2013, 13:00
The real lesson here...don't live in fucking California, and definitely not L.A.
Kraven251
05-15-2013, 13:04
Here is my best attempt to summarize this from a police perspective: Totality of the circumstances. It is an actual legal concept, not just a cliche. The officers coming to your door have to make a decision based on all the information available to them. There is no checklist they have to fill out in making their decision, and YOUR OPINION on whether or not they can enter is not taken into consideration. And let me highlight a major point that some people don't seem to comprehend: The police do NOT have to articulate their reasons to YOU. They do not need to give you a verbal rundown of their conclusions and their observations, and then tell you through the door so that you can be the judge of them. They don't need your verbal consent to do their job. You are not the judge/jury to their actions. If the cops determined that they are going to force entry, that decision can/will be judicially evaluated at a later time... by a JUDGE, not by YOU.
So much drama can be avoided by people just not acting like assholes. People refuse to act like decent rational humans, and this causes complications for them. You don't want to have a civil conversation with the cops that were called to your house? Fine. But understand that you are sealing your own fate, and stop blaming your shitty decisions on the cops. Personal responsibility and rational behavior goes a long way in this world. Cops respond to a bajillion calls that are easily handled because everyone is rational and civil. You refuse to be rational and civil, well congratulations, you are officially a special needs case and will be handled appropriately.
Or you giggle when they go to pop the door and break themselves because the door is reinforced. Though there are very civil ways to tell the police to fuck off, you just have to employ them, else you get to deal with the outcome of the society we live in today.
buckshotbarlow
05-15-2013, 14:32
get the wife on the phone with the attorney asap while they are at the door!
They don't need your verbal consent to do their job.
You are not the judge/jury to their actions.
Two points of contention here, and I'm not arguing with you on this particular case (don't have all the facts, can't make that call, I wasn't there), but on these two individual statements you made:
1- Technically, yes, they do, in some instances. Without a warrant or probable cause, LE does need my consent to search and/or enter my home.
2- Technically, again, yes we are the judge/jury of their actions, otherwise who are they accountable to if not us, the community in which they're supposed to serve. Without oversight they could just do whatever they want unchecked- see N.O.P.D. prior to Katrina (I don't know about now).
Here is my best attempt to summarize this from a police perspective: Totality of the circumstances. It is an actual legal concept, not just a cliche. The officers coming to your door have to make a decision based on all the information available to them. There is no checklist they have to fill out in making their decision, and YOUR OPINION on whether or not they can enter is not taken into consideration. And let me highlight a major point that some people don't seem to comprehend: The police do NOT have to articulate their reasons to YOU. They do not need to give you a verbal rundown of their conclusions and their observations, and then tell you through the door so that you can be the judge of them. They don't need your verbal consent to do their job. You are not the judge/jury to their actions. If the cops determined that they are going to force entry, that decision can/will be judicially evaluated at a later time... by a JUDGE, not by YOU.
So much drama can be avoided by people just not acting like assholes. People refuse to act like decent rational humans, and this causes complications for them. You don't want to have a civil conversation with the cops that were called to your house? Fine. But understand that you are sealing your own fate, and stop blaming your shitty decisions on the cops. Personal responsibility and rational behavior goes a long way in this world. Cops respond to a bajillion calls that are easily handled because everyone is rational and civil. You refuse to be rational and civil, well congratulations, you are officially a special needs case and will be handled appropriately.
I am really not wanting to put words in your post, so please correct me here. You are saying that if a cop feels he wants to come into my home for any reason, he can and should with my only recourse being a judge after the fact? I have nothing to say and you don't have to either?
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I have said from the beginning of this thread the cops should have backed down, gotten a warrant from a judge and then proceeded to make sure everything was safe. If this is too much to ask, the words above mean nothing.
Bailey Guns
05-15-2013, 14:54
I am really not wanting to put words in your post, so please correct me here. You are saying that if a cop feels he wants to come into my home for any reason, he can and should with my only recourse being a judge after the fact?
I'll put words in his post. He's not saying anything even remotely close to that and you know it. You're just being obtuse and confrontational...much like a troll.
I'll put words in his post. He's not saying anything even remotely close to that and you know it. You're just being obtuse and confrontational...much like a troll.
Then please make the statement right. What does a cop have to tell me. What is the line between where they can come in and I can keep them out? Your'e an ex cop. Seriously explain where that line is. Ronin was asking much the same question. No barbs or confrontation, help me understand from the police point of view.
Bailey Guns
05-15-2013, 15:11
Here is my best attempt to summarize this from a police perspective: Totality of the circumstances. It is an actual legal concept, not just a cliche. The officers coming to your door have to make a decision based on all the information available to them. There is no checklist they have to fill out in making their decision, and YOUR OPINION on whether or not they can enter is not taken into consideration. And let me highlight a major point that some people don't seem to comprehend: The police do NOT have to articulate their reasons to YOU. They do not need to give you a verbal rundown of their conclusions and their observations, and then tell you through the door so that you can be the judge of them. They don't need your verbal consent to do their job. You are not the judge/jury to their actions. If the cops determined that they are going to force entry, that decision can/will be judicially evaluated at a later time... by a JUDGE, not by YOU.
So much drama can be avoided by people just not acting like assholes. People refuse to act like decent rational humans, and this causes complications for them. You don't want to have a civil conversation with the cops that were called to your house? Fine. But understand that you are sealing your own fate, and stop blaming your shitty decisions on the cops. Personal responsibility and rational behavior goes a long way in this world. Cops respond to a bajillion calls that are easily handled because everyone is rational and civil. You refuse to be rational and civil, well congratulations, you are officially a special needs case and will be handled appropriately.
It's right there. We can explain it to you but we can't understand it for you. Let me say it one more time:
The police don't always need a warrant to lawfully enter your home regardless of whether you think they do or not. And if that time comes, it won't be up to you and you may or may not be consulted by the police.
There is ample case law to support that. Look it up yourself if you're so interested in learning. Frankly, I think you're more interested in chest-thumping and proving how little you do know over real information from people who've done/do this for a living.
Then please make the statement right. What does a cop have to tell me. What is the line between where they can come in and I can keep them out? Your'e an ex cop. Seriously explain where that line is. Ronin was asking much the same question. No barbs or confrontation, help me understand from the police point of view.
Careful, I never got an answer to this- I think the prudent answer would be "consult with an attorney."
It's right there. We can explain it to you but we can't understand it for you. Let me say it one more time:
The police don't always need a warrant to lawfully enter your home regardless of whether you think they do or not. And if that time comes, it won't be up to you and you may or may not be consulted by the police.
There is ample case law to support that. Look it up yourself if you're so interested in learning. Frankly, I think you're more interested in chest-thumping and proving how little you do know over real information from people who've done/do this for a living.
There's also case law that proves if a LEO is overstepping their bounds and posing a threat to either life, personal safety, or false imprisonment, the individual has the right to oppose unlawful actions, up to and including the use of force... Not stating anything to bash LEOs, just stating that this coin has another side... TSACABS.
Bailey Guns
05-15-2013, 15:15
DenverLEO gave you the answer. Apparently you don't like it.
Careful, I never got an answer to this- I think the prudent answer would be "consult with an attorney."
There's also case law that proves if a LEO is overstepping their bounds and posing a threat to either life, personal safety, or false imprisonment, the individual has the right to oppose unlawful actions, up to and including the use of force... Not stating anything to bash LEOs, just stating that this coin has another side... TSACABS.
I did not say you had any answer, just asking the same question. It is OK if we agree on things, this looks like one of those cases. It is not clear to me either and you are making good points.
DingleBerns
05-15-2013, 15:20
I am really not wanting to put words in your post, so please correct me here. You are saying that if a cop feels he wants to come into my home for any reason, he can and should with my only recourse being a judge after the fact? I have nothing to say and you don't have to either?
There are bad apples in every profession however cops don't just walk into random houses without a reason. I always ask for consent to search something even if i have probable cause. If i get it then it helps my case, if i don't, i search anyway (again if i have pc). If i don't have pc, I ask for consent, and they throw out the word "warrant" then i leave it at that. I have a feeling there is more to the story that the video doesn't show.
Side note: It is always funny when your about to arrest somebody and they say "you can't arrest me, you haven't read me my rights!" People need to stop watching police drama shows thinking that what they do on television is correct. And no it is not a right that you get a phone call as soon as I arrest you, what amendment is that under?
DingleBerns
05-15-2013, 15:25
There's also case law that proves if a LEO is overstepping their bounds and posing a threat to either life, personal safety, or false imprisonment, the individual has the right to oppose unlawful actions, up to and including the use of force... Not stating anything to bash LEOs, just stating that this coin has another side... TSACABS.
Most people who get called on and we confront think we are overstepping our bounds. That will be a bad day for everyone if a person tries to use force for thinking "we are a threat to their life." Again, cops don't just show up for no reason. Well I take that back, I do go talk to people who are outside their house to get to know them.
There are bad apples in every profession however cops don't just walk into random houses without a reason. I always ask for consent to search something even if i have probable cause. If i get it then it helps my case, if i don't, i search anyway (again if i have pc). If i don't have pc, I ask for consent, and they throw out the word "warrant" then i leave it at that. I have a feeling there is more to the story that the video doesn't show.
Side note: It is always funny when your about to arrest somebody and they say "you can't arrest me, you haven't read me my rights!" People need to stop watching police drama shows thinking that what they do on television is correct. And no it is not a right that you get a phone call as soon as I arrest you, what amendment is that under?
What you are describing here is what I would expect to be the answer. I assume you are also a LEO? It is good to hear this from one if that is the case. Agreed, we are not seeing all of what happened and there may be more but if a Judge only had this much hard evidence (and yes this is hypothetical) would I be so far off saying they should back down and get a warrant to de-escalate the situation?
Also, (again asking for understanding) don't you have to tell me what the probable cause is? It seems that is the meaning written into the 4th. If not, what is to stop a cop from searching, finding something and then backfilling their story to fit what they found?
Bailey Guns
05-15-2013, 15:42
OK...I have nothing better to do so I'm going to fabricate a hypothetical situation.
Mr Hound and Mrs Hound get into a verbal-only argument but it is rather heated. No physical contact. Hound Child is frightened by the argument to the point she calls 911. The 911 dispatcher answers the phone and Hound Child says nothing but is crying. In the background the dispatcher hears Mrs Hound screaming, "JUST STOP IT! YOU'RE SCARING HOUND CHILD AND NOW SHES ON THE PHONE!". The dispatcher then hears Hound Child's terrified screams because Mr Hound yanks the phone away from her and screams, "HANG UP THE DAMN PHONE!" as he hangs up. Again, the child isn't hurt but is very scared. The dispatcher calls back and there is no answer.
The argument continues for a few minutes and a neighbor who is walking between the homes while taking out his trash hears the screams of the child and Mrs Hound. The neighbor then calls 911 as well and reports this as a fight between Mr and Mrs Hound.
The dispatcher now has two 911 calls as well as her observations of what she heard over the open line. The dispatcher sends two officers to the scene and a third decides to go as a cover car.
A few minutes later Officer 1 arrives and hears some yelling from inside the house. The neighbor is waiting outside and contacts the officer. The neighbor states he thinks the husband is beating up the wife and reports he heard the wife and child screaming.
Officer 2 and Officer 3 arrive. The three officers now have: 2 911 calls, a neighbor reporting a violent domestic, Officer 1 heard screaming and the dispatcher reporting a failed callback plus the things she heard over the open line.
All 3 officers go to the front door and knock. Mr Hound comes to the door and refuses to speak with the officers and refuses to allow them entry. He also refuses to allow anyone inside the home to speak with the officers. Mr Hound says they were just having an argument and everything is fine but refuses repeated requests to open the door and come out to talk with the officers, despite their repeated requests and the explanation they need to make sure everyone is OK. Officer 1 calls the shift sgt and explains the situation. The shift sgt arrives. The shift sgt attempts to talk some sense into Mr Hound but he still refuses to allow entry. The officers all feel they have a reasonable belief this is an emergency situation that requires them to enter the home to check the welfare of the wife and child.
The sgt tells Officer 1 to force entry and tells the other officers to be prepared to subdue Mr Hound should he choose not to cooperate. Officer 1 kicks the door, the officers rush in and issue orders for Mr Hound to get on the floor (standard procedure for safety's sake). Mr Hound knows the law (he thinks) and refuses the officers repeated orders to get on the floor. At this point the officers choose the most safe and effective non-lethal use of force available to them and they taser Mr Hound. They could've man-handled him or OC'd him but either of those options would pose more risk to others, including the officers.
Mr Hound is subdued. The officers check the house for other occupants and discover Mrs Hound and Hound Child are, in fact, safe and uninjured. Mr Hound is arrested for Resisting Arrest and Obstruction. Mr Hound also has a broken door.
Mr Hound goes to jail. Mr Hound could've avoided jail if he hadn't been such an expert on the law and police procedure.
DingleBerns
05-15-2013, 15:45
What you are describing here is what I would expect to be the answer. I assume you are also a LEO? It is good to hear this from one if that is the case. Agreed, we are not seeing all of what happened and there may be more but if a Judge only had this much hard evidence (and yes this is hypothetical) would I be so far off saying they should back down and get a warrant to de-escalate the situation?
Also, (again asking for understanding) don't you have to tell me what the probable cause is? It seems that is the meaning written into the 4th. If not, what is to stop a cop from searching, finding something and then backfilling their story to fit what they found?
I guess if you want to be confrontational then you can say get a warrant. There are too many variables that could or could not be present which could get a law enforcement officer into a house without a warrant. At that point, you will know if they have pc or not because they will either leave, get a warrant, or search anyways.
I usually tell most people what my pc is but you don't have to (it's just the nice thing to do). Again there are bad apples, but Integrity should stop that and if it doesn't then they will get caught up in internal affairs sooner or later.
ok so you don't want the cops to go inside your house? I think the simple answer to this scenario is to go outside and talk to the cops, unfortunately these people decided to barricade themselves inside the house, and that won't work for any DV Call I am aware of, in California nor Colorado, I don't know any LEO that would have a problem with this situation if the Contact would have happened outside the home, but it is very clear in this video that these people decided to have this conversation through a window, a wall and a door, Cops simply removed the door, don't like it go outside, case law will support LE in this case.
All this guy did was show the world how stupid a person can be when he doesn't know the law, LE did nothing wrong.
Sure LE could tell you what the PC was in this case but there is a time for that, and that time is after the scene has been secured and the investigation of reported possible crimes , LE is under no constraints to discuss terms, they have Policy and case law to support the way things are done, first responsibility is to secure the scene/victims/badguys then investigate, once everything is cleared up then would be a good time to discuss how things happen or PC used etc etc, but to barricade yourself inside your house is a great way to get your door kicked in, all they had to say is were coming outside to discuss this and LE would have taken it from there, no door getting kicked in and no one taking the ride.
In this case(possible DV as well as actions by those in the house in the video) LE did not need a warrant they had cause to enter the house, case law supports that. As was stated earlier DV is a delicate situation but LE is granted broad actions in dealing with DV, 15 years ago that wasn't the case as I am sure Bailey can attest to, getting your door broken down is much easier to fix then some womans ribs and the Legislature in this state has made it so that LE has the tools needed to fight this situation in accordance with the US Constitution, and Case Law throughout the US.
Most people who get called on and we confront think we are overstepping our bounds. That will be a bad day for everyone if a person tries to use force for thinking "we are a threat to their life." Again, cops don't just show up for no reason. Well I take that back, I do go talk to people who are outside their house to get to know them.
I'm not talking about every case- and thank fully everyone knows not to use these rare cases as an affirmative defense. But, in cases where they are clearly overstepping their legal bounds, there has been precedence to excuse use of force against illegal action by authorities. I would never use force in a case like that unless I knew 110% it was airtight and justified- it's much better to just fight them in court where you don't stand the chance of sparking a deadly standoff with SWAT (that's something you will most certainly lose). I only state because it happened to my family when my brother got busted (after the fact) for Driving under revocation, deputies showed up at the house looking for him, my mother said he was not home, they asked to come in, she said no, they shoved her aside and came in anyway. At which point they overstepped their bounds. I don't give two shits what someone outside looking in says, my mother doesn't lie about these things...
DingleBerns
05-15-2013, 15:51
Bailey that's a violation of Mr. Hounds 4th amendment because there was no exigent circumstances. [ROFL2]
Bailey Guns
05-15-2013, 15:54
Bailey that's a violation of Mr. Hounds 4th amendment because there was no exigent circumstances. [ROFL2]
I went to all that trouble to fabricate obvious exigent circumstances and you just ruined it. Thanks, pal!
[handbags]
DingleBerns
05-15-2013, 15:55
I'm not talking about every case- and thank fully everyone knows not to use these rare cases as an affirmative defense. But, in cases where they are clearly overstepping their legal bounds, there has been precedence to excuse use of force against illegal action by authorities. I would never use force in a case like that unless I knew 110% it was airtight and justified- it's much better to just fight them in court where you don't stand the chance of sparking a deadly standoff with SWAT (that's something you will most certainly lose). I only state because it happened to my family when my brother got busted (after the fact) for Driving under revocation, deputies showed up at the house looking for him, my mother said he was not home, they asked to come in, she said no, they shoved her aside and came in anyway. At which point they overstepped their bounds. I don't give two shits what someone outside looking in says, my mother doesn't lie about these things...
If those are true facts then they were over stepping their boundaries. For shits and giggles, say your story was absolutely true (not saying it isn't) i would hope that nobody would use force against the officers that entered because it would not end well for anyone.
DingleBerns
05-15-2013, 16:04
I went to all that trouble to fabricate obvious exigent circumstances and you just ruined it. Thanks, pal!
[handbags]
That's a good scenario for people to see. Nothing actually bad has happened but based upon the 911 calls and officer's observations, it appears something is wrong and dad is trying to cover up (even though nothing actually happened and he is attempting to exercise his 4th amendment right.)
Okay so a few questions here. The police in question said they were responding to a domestic violence call. Does that automatically give them probable cause? Is this the type of overreaching crap they're trying to do here?
http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=e8a4cfd49b04
I'd like to weigh in here. I'm not a police officer. I do know that DV calls are some of the most dangerous and unpredictable calls that officers respond to.
I don't know the entirety of the situation surrounding this video snippet. I DO think the guy taking the video is being a complete and utter jackhole. It reminds me of those collegiate yahoos on that Campus Cops show, trying to school the officers on what they can or can't do because their dad is in the FBI.
All they had to do was go outside and talk with the officers. Instead, he was a complete ass and started yapping about "martial law." All this, while there was one child in the house and one playing outside. Instead of calmly clearing it up (for all we know, this guy could have been beating his wife right up until the cops showed up- we have no idea why the officers were summoned to the residence. I highly doubt they were sitting in the house, peacefully watching TV and the officers just showed up out of the blue) by talking with them, he chose to act like a cage-brave dog at a vet clinic.
So, yes, I think that DOES give the officers probable cause. DV is nothing to take lightly.
If those are true facts then they were over stepping their boundaries. For shits and giggles, say your story was absolutely true (not saying it isn't) i would hope that nobody would use force against the officers that entered because it would not end well for anyone.
No, of course not. But the problem comes, and I'm not bashing, but most cops I know are that "A-type" personality and they don't take kindly to non-LEOs telling them how to do their job, so if they ignore you're polite attempts to inform them that they're overstepping, guess what? Later down the line they're the reason for a major abuse of power lawsuit that could cause their job- but hey, I tried to warn you... Kind of situation. Obviously you don't fight it right then and there unless absolutely, 100% sure you're in the right, necessary, but nothing wrong with saying "hey, this is too far, pump the brakes or you're gonna get flippin' sued."
The home owner could have stepped out and messing with cops is generally not the smart move. The home owner could have backed down but as with Ronin's story they don't always. I would also say we are not free if as citizens we are always expected to be the ones to backdown when confronted by authority. There are extreme cases like Ruby Ridge and Waco and smaller like Ronin's mom. We know how those turned out. The right answer is that unless the cop knows 100% somebody is in danger they should expect to backdown. That does not mean leave just backoff and get a judicial review if the citizen is pushing their rights. They hear a scream, go get'em. Other than that backoff, you have control of the perimeter if that is warranted. If I can't be in control of my own home what are we saying that this is a free country.
DingleBerns
05-15-2013, 16:21
Obviously you don't fight it right then and there unless absolutely, 100% sure you're in the right, necessary, but nothing wrong with saying "hey, this is too far, pump the brakes or you're gonna get flippin' sued."
I agree and it will come out if they keep abusing their power. Ha, I have never heard that one before (ok maybe once a night.)
CroiDhubh
05-15-2013, 16:22
You don't just kick in doors. You make yourself so annoying that they feel compelled to humor you and don't go away until then. Now, if there is some damn good, and it better be damn good, reason to kick in the door, then of course you do. Just showing up to a possible DV with someone not wanting you to come inside is NOT enough to kick in the doors.
We don't know what the initial call was and we don't know what the cops heard coming up to the house. I got to be present when a few officers busted in a door over a possible DV, but that's because of how the call came out from dispatch. Need more info.
RblDiver
05-15-2013, 16:29
Question from an on-the-fence ignorant most-definitely-non-cop: Isn't there generally some form of "dial-a-judge" who can create a quick warrant for cases like this? So, for instance, one officer can be engaging the husband while another requests a warrant, which is quickly granted? That way they could then tell the man that they do indeed have a warrant to investigate, and door-kicking only becomes necessary if it looks like action is imminent?
CroiDhubh
05-15-2013, 16:44
Yes and no. It wouldn't be used in this situation. More to it than this, but you basically swear over the phone why you have probable cause, a temporary one is issued to you, and the official one is delivered quickly. Just needing to talk to someone about a possible DV isn't enough to get a warrant for entry.
OneGuy67
05-15-2013, 16:45
Question from an on-the-fence ignorant most-definitely-non-cop: Isn't there generally some form of "dial-a-judge" who can create a quick warrant for cases like this? So, for instance, one officer can be engaging the husband while another requests a warrant, which is quickly granted? That way they could then tell the man that they do indeed have a warrant to investigate, and door-kicking only becomes necessary if it looks like action is imminent?
No. There are telephonic warrants where you faxed or emailed a warrant application and the judge swears you to it via phone and then faxes or emails a signed warrant back. Other than that, no.
CroiDhubh
05-15-2013, 16:47
No. There are telephonic warrants where you faxed or emailed a warrant application and the judge swears you to it via phone and then faxes or emails a signed warrant back. Other than that, no.
This is part of the "more to it".
Bailey Guns
05-15-2013, 16:58
I would also say we are not free if as citizens we are always expected to be the ones to backdown when confronted by authority. There are extreme cases like Ruby Ridge and Waco and smaller like Ronin's mom. We know how those turned out. The right answer is that unless the cop knows 100% somebody is in danger they should expect to backdown. That does not mean leave just backoff and get a judicial review if the citizen is pushing their rights. They hear a scream, go get'em. Other than that backoff, you have control of the perimeter if that is warranted. If I can't be in control of my own home what are we saying that this is a free country.
No, Hound, that's not the right answer. And the reason you are expected to defer to authority is because the police are engaged to keep the peace. And in a scenario like I outlined above they don't need to get a judicial review. It's already been done. It's called case law and precedence.
It's like talking to a freakin' wall.
Bailey Guns
05-15-2013, 17:03
Question from an on-the-fence ignorant most-definitely-non-cop: Isn't there generally some form of "dial-a-judge" who can create a quick warrant for cases like this? So, for instance, one officer can be engaging the husband while another requests a warrant, which is quickly granted? That way they could then tell the man that they do indeed have a warrant to investigate, and door-kicking only becomes necessary if it looks like action is imminent?
There is but it's not appropriate in cases where police officers have probable cause to believe someone is in danger. Like I said above, police officers don't typically get warrants for stuff like this because it's established as permissible through case law and precedent.
If they were to back off and wait for a warrant (which doesn't happen as quickly as it does on TV...even with an on-call judge) and then the husband decides to take the entire family out with him, now who's at fault? That's right, you'd all be pissin' and moanin' that the cops didn't do their job.
So someone else can argue fruitlessly with Hound because he's obviously too dense to listen to reasonable and correct explanations. People like him are why gin was invented.
OneGuy67
05-15-2013, 17:14
So someone else can argue fruitlessly with Hound because he's obviously too dense to listen to reasonable and correct explanations. People like him are why gin was invented.
Hmmm! Gin and tonic! I'll ghost toast you tonight with one!
Bailey Guns
05-15-2013, 17:15
Hmmm! Gin and tonic! I'll ghost toast you tonight with one!
[Beer]
Exactly what I had in mind. Cheers!
Cylinder Head
05-15-2013, 17:59
Thank you to all of the LEO's current and former here for your input and discourse. This has been a great thread to learn from. Best move in any situation like this is clearly to go outside and speak with the police, and don't be a dick.
K, I have a simple question, and I've heard the answer a few times, but it turned out differently for me... So, here goes.... If the police get called to your residence on a DV call, does someone have to get arrested? Is there a difference if it was someone in the house that called, like your GF or wife, vs a neighbor? As stated before, I had some neighbors call in a DV call that sounded pretty serious to the police, and nothing happened after they found out what was going on... So... what's the deal?
Goodburbon
05-15-2013, 18:37
Thank you to all of the LEO's current and former here for your input and discourse. This has been a great thread to learn from. Best move in any situation like this is clearly to go outside and speak with the police, and don't be a dick.
Pretty good advice for life in general!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Bailey Guns
05-15-2013, 18:46
K, I have a simple question, and I've heard the answer a few times, but it turned out differently for me... So, here goes.... If the police get called to your residence on a DV call, does someone have to get arrested? Is there a difference if it was someone in the house that called, like your GF or wife, vs a neighbor? As stated before, I had some neighbors call in a DV call that sounded pretty serious to the police, and nothing happened after they found out what was going on... So... what's the deal?
No, someone doesn't have to be arrested unless there's probable cause to believe a crime was committed. It happens all the time where cops are called because of load noise, screaming, etc...and people are just goofing around or it was just an argument. It's not illegal to argue with your wife/girlfriend...yet.
BushMasterBoy
05-15-2013, 18:50
I bet if you hide in your basement and don't do anything to let them know you are in your house, they won't kick the door down. Why? Liability! Same as if they get a warrant and kick down the wrong address door. They are liable! If they had no liability, they wouldn't have liability insurance. Sure the courts claim sovereign immunity for police in some circumstances, but not all. Same as the ladies shot by LAPD delivering the newspaper, wrongfully shot and got a few million $. Be a dumb ass and say you are filming and talk to them through the window and you will see what happens...
Hound, even when I am taking a statement about the facts of loss in an accident, I couldn't even perform my job correctly if I had to mess around explaining every line of questioning I go through, and waiting around for the interviewee to decide if the questions were important enough to answer. When people act like dicks and refuse to give statements, that's fine with me. I just make the decision without their input, which usually is not favorable to them.
Hound I have to agree, it seems like you are being intentionally dense here. How can it possibly be unclear to you that NO ONE ever mentioned cops coming into your home "for any reason". That was NEVER the discussion. We are talking about (and have been the entire time) forcing entry for exigent circumstances, which must be articulated by the officer(s) via the totality of the circumstances. That is complete BS that you are going to claim anyone was talking about cops forcing entry "for any reason". That is a COMPLETELY different issue and you know it.
To build on what Bailey stated, the legal basis for an exigent circumstances entry are determined by the totality of the circumstances known to the responding officer(s) at the time. The validity of exigent circumstances is NOT DETERMINED BY YOU! It is mind-numbingly absurd to think that the citizen in question is the legal judge of whether exigent circumstances exist. Using this exact same logic, individual citizens must now have the authority to refuse arrest because they don't agree with it? A cop activates his lights and siren to pull you over, and YOU are the one that determines whether or not you agree to being pulled over? Is this really what you are suggesting?
I don't know how much clearer I can make it. If the cops decide to force entry based on exigent circumstances, that is THEIR decision to make, not YOURS standing on the other side of the door. YOU don't decide whether exigent circumstances exist, and your strong opinion on the matter carries absolutely zero weight in the actual legality of the decision. And to clarify another issue you bring up, exigent circumstances are exactly that: exigent. Meaning urgent. The very purpose of the exigent circumstances warrant exception is because timeliness is an issue, and the time needed to obtain a warrant is unreasonable considering the circumstances. If the cops think your wife is inside bleeding out on the floor, they AREN'T GOING TO WAIT FOR A WARRANT. I don't know how I could possibly explain this any more clearly.
I went to look for a third party and found this: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment I think it explains a lot of what we are talking about from a knowledgable third party.
I am not being "dense", I just don't agree.
"We are talking about (and have been the entire time) forcing entry for exigent circumstances, which must be articulated by the officer(s) via the totality of the circumstances. " I think we are agreeing then that the cop needed to 'articulate' what the exigent circumstances are. As with Bailey's humorus example, if they can't take the time for a judge,not good but ok but not being able to take 2 seconds to announce the probable cause, WTF. There was no announcement of probable cause either before or after the actual break in.
"The validity of exigent circumstances is NOT DETERMINED BY YOU! " I have never said it was. I have asked why the cop could not get a judge (a third party) to validate the circumstances per the 4th. Going to....
"And to clarify another issue you bring up, exigent circumstances are exactly that: exigent. Meaning urgent." We can also see in that video there is nothing urgent. He asks for a warrant, states kids are home, keeps his hands where they can be seen, the wife agrees with him and not in a "he is forcing me" tone. They are clearly spooked by all the cops. There may be something else we are not seeing but urgency.... That we are seeing.. or the lack there of. The only one in a hurry was the cop when the guy did not want to come out.
Have you been reading any of what I have said. I have repeatly stated that if they heard a scream or saw a body, go get'em... That was not the case here. If he had planned some attack I seriously doubt the kid would be out in the yard playing. He would have brought everybody in and barred the doors. His actions, while not fully complying were not threating. He would have had a gun not a camera in his hand maybe a knife... something other than a camera for a judge. You guys are debating this video and giving deference to the cops without seeing them at some fault is biased. Ya, the guy could have come out but ya know what, that is is home. The founding fathers created the 4th to specifically not allow the government to break down their doors without 100% assurance something is going on. They had just come out of a Government that thought they could and did it in the name of the King. To move this a little closer to home, when they "Come for our guns" will you use exigent circumstances as the reason to break down my door? You know I own guns, can claim I am likely to use them and thus it was 'urgent' to break down my door. (This is not a personal attack, I mean this in general terms as an example). I really don't have an issue with cops. Again most all of my encounters with cops have been just that, with cops. I just don't defer to authority blindly, especially in my home. I still think this video was handled poorly and a bunch of cops (Yes, I still respect all of your opinions even if I don't agree. This is still, for the most part, a friendly debate) toeing the thin-blue-line may make me seem like talking to a wall. This all makes me wonder what my years of service, protecting this country was for. I think I would be more sympathetic to your arguments if there was any feel that the cops could be in the wrong here. The argument that we don't know everything only goes so far. That is why I started out with the article from Cornell. I wanted another source.
The cops may be wrong. [Flower]
The only places those types of decisions will be made are: by the police supervisors, politicians overseeing the police department, the community where this occurred, any criminal or civil court that has jurisdiction. Otherwise, all of the media, commentators, and board posters are just expressing their opinions and we know how much those opinions are worth.
You can do everything right and still be wrong.
Be safe.
brokenscout
05-15-2013, 21:37
Serve and Protect[Coffee] I hope there is more to this story. I do know a lot of LEO do not like being filmed
Serve and Protect[Coffee] I hope there is more to this story. I do know a lot of LEO do not like being filmed
Other than actors, porn stars, and people on reality shows, who likes to be filmed at work?
Other than actors, porn stars, and people on reality shows, who likes to be filmed at work?
Do you think elected officials would mind having a live, public web cam at their desk 24 hours a day?
brokenscout
05-15-2013, 21:46
True but if your not doing anything illegal it should not matter, they are PUBLIC SERVANTS.
Other than actors, porn stars, and people on reality shows, who likes to be filmed at work?
brokenscout
05-15-2013, 21:47
The Gov has a trillion cameras and they are recording everything anyways
Do you think elected officials would mind having a live, public web cam at their desk 24 hours a day?
Only if they can selectively delete 18 minutes at a time.
True but if your not doing anything illegal it should not matter, they are PUBLIC SERVANTS.
Ah, that logic sounds familiar...."If you're not planning on doing anything illegal, why should it matter if the government knows how many guns you have?"
And the "public servants" line is as old and as crusty as the "My taxes pay your salary!" line.
brokenscout
05-15-2013, 22:06
Its very different, one is a Constitutional issue, one is making sure the Police are doing the right thing.And yes taxes do pay their salary. Police ,though rare do commit crimes while wearing a badge, cameras help keep people honest
Ah, that logic sounds familiar...."If you're not planning on doing anything illegal, why should it matter if the government knows how many guns you have?"
And the "public servants" line is as old and as crusty as the "My taxes pay your salary!" line.
"And to clarify another issue you bring up, exigent circumstances are exactly that: exigent. Meaning urgent." We can also see in that video there is nothing urgent. He asks for a warrant, states kids are home, keeps his hands where they can be seen, the wife agrees with him and not in a "he is forcing me" tone. They are clearly spooked by all the cops. There may be something else we are not seeing but urgency.... That we are seeing.. or the lack there of. The only one in a hurry was the cop when the guy did not want to come out.
And this is where you are wrong, just showing your hands and having another unidentified person swear upon God almighty through a window doesn't relieve a LEO from his sworn OBLIGATION to the city/county/state he protects, LEO's are Sworn to enforce the Law, Laws, case law and Policy dictate how much and how far an Officer must go in order to enforce the laws put in place by Legistlators YOU vote for.
As has been said, cops roll up to this house, see two people stating that everything is fine nothing is wrong through a window, meanwhile inside the house there is a woman bound and dieing, sound familiar? Research the amount of times Cleveland cops were called to Ariel Castro's house and didn't do a thorough job investigating the report, which way do you want it?
Clearly spooked? Get real, I think you would have a better case if you stated these people were Illegal aliens, these people had an agenda and got exactly what they wanted, the only problem is they do not know the law.
Cops don't like to be filmed? yeah sure some don't like it when someone they are interviewing has a camera up but in all honesty I don't want your hand at shoulder level either when I am talking to you. Normal people do not have their hands elevated in a position where it could be employed to strike someone while having a conversation! The reality is that a huge portion of LEO Work is in fact done on Camera, every LEO on earth has had the discussion about how would you like a personal camera on your uniform, some have it now, its not just to protect the citizenry its also to protect the officer in fact as these incidents become more popular more and more cops are carrying them, I bet inside of 10 years it will be Policy in many departments, now lets put this into perspective, how would you like to go to work knowing that your company car had multiple cameras in it and you were also required to have another camera on your uniform?
As I said before if the persons in this video had only gone outside nothing would have happened, NOTHING.
And this is where you are wrong, just showing your hands and having another unidentified person swear upon God almighty through a window doesn't relieve a LEO from his sworn OBLIGATION to the city/county/state he protects, LEO's are Sworn to enforce the Law, Laws, case law and Policy dictate how much and how far an Officer must go in order to enforce the laws put in place by Legistlators YOU vote for.
Never said they had to go away and be done with it, just backoff and go get a warrant. You guys really must hate warrants? That would also be a 'WE' vote for.
As has been said, cops roll up to this house, see two people stating that everything is fine nothing is wrong through a window, meanwhile inside the house there is a woman bound and dieing, sound familiar? Research the amount of times Cleveland cops were called to Ariel Castro's house and didn't do a thorough job investigating the report, which way do you want it?
This is my point, which apparently if you are or have been a cop vanishes from reading this. If they had seen or even heard of "woman bound and dieing" then it would be an exigent situation.. By all means go get'em. DID THEY SEE ANYTHING MAKING THIS EXIGENT? And don't give me we don't know? He would have said something to warn the other cops what to look for.
Clearly spooked? Get real, I think you would have a better case if you stated these people were Illegal aliens, these people had an agenda and got exactly what they wanted, the only problem is they do not know the law.
How else do you think 'spooked' acts with cops going for their guns?
Cops don't like to be filmed? yeah sure some don't like it when someone they are interviewing has a camera up but in all honesty I don't want your hand at shoulder level either when I am talking to you. Normal people do not have their hands elevated in a position where it could be employed to strike someone while having a conversation!
UM.... Hands elevated is the universal sign of "I am harmless don't hurt me!" This is especially true with a bunch of cops at your door guns drawn! Are you serious with this one?
The reality is that a huge portion of LEO Work is in fact done on Camera, every LEO on earth has had the discussion about how would you like a personal camera on your uniform, some have it now, its not just to protect the citizenry its also to protect the officer in fact as these incidents become more popular more and more cops are carrying them, I bet inside of 10 years it will be Policy in many departments, now lets put this into perspective, how would you like to go to work knowing that your company car had multiple cameras in it and you were also required to have another camera on your uniform?
If you have the power to end citizens freedom or even life.... I think cops should be on camera every second they wear the uniform. Courts are putting them in for this reason, they were put into cop cars for this reason. The truth is that in probably 99% of situatios they actually exonerate the cop. Cops deal with a lot of BS each and everyday. The video takes away any question of he-said-she-said and generally work for the cop. In those 1% times we get rid of the bad cop or make sure the right guy goes to jail.
As I said before if the persons in this video had only gone outside nothing would have happened, NOTHING.
Are there ANY cops on here that think those cops could have backed down or do we just stick with the brotherhood? That does not mean they have gone home, just backed down and gotten a warrant. Most people when asked if you can search X allow you to, some don't. That does not make them guilty or even suspect by law. Is there any scenario where the citizen does not have to bow down to the cop... If not, don't ask why people think there is a police state( as this guy states in the video). Don't give me the platitude that cops work for "us". Cops have a tough job and sometimes some people make it harder... Probably a lot of people but its not all about "Protect" there is also "Serve".
It is sad how much you are all protesting your right as cops to bust down a door because you feel like it, instead of agreeing to a calmer approach. This was not exigent, that much is clear from the video. There is a reason this thread was started and has had so many views. It was not "Hey... Look what a good job the cops did". Bailey and the rest immediatly jumped to defending the cops with "not enough to make a determination!" so..... What were you guys defending? This was questionable behavior from the beginning or it would not have been a thread (BTW it is not the only "cop doing what??" thread on this mostly conservative forum). All the cops on this thread have done is shown solidarity in the defense of that questionable act instead of a "Lessons Learned" where maybe they could have done things differently.
Bailey Guns
05-16-2013, 08:08
You've gone full retard, dude. Never go full retard.
You've gone full retard, dude. Never go full retard.
Good come back there, it shows the intelligence of your arguments.
palepainter
05-16-2013, 08:20
My only two comments are....Did the cops really need to endanger the people in the house with guns drawn hot? And the did the guy in house really need to endanger his family by not complying to go outside? If it were me, I would be quick to go outside and address the issue in order not to escalate the situation. I would not have let them into the house. This is a series of shitty decisions on both sides of the line.
Bailey Guns
05-16-2013, 08:24
Good come back there, it shows the intelligence of your arguments.
BFD! You can't seem to comprehend an intelligent argument so what difference does it make. You've had several current and former peace officers who've been in situations like this explain it to you over and over in great detail and you still don't get it. You ignore established policy, precedence, case law and procedures that have been explained to you over and over. I can overlook ignorance because you don't know what you don't know. But when the reality is explained to you numerous times by people who are trained and experienced and you ignore that and continue with your ridiculous arguments you've crossed the line from ignorant to stupid.
Stupid is inexcusable.
My only two comments are....Did the cops really need to endanger the people in the house with guns drawn hot? And the did the guy in house really need to endanger his family by not complying to go outside? If it were me, I would be quick to go outside and address the issue in order not to escalate the situation. I would not have let them into the house. This is a series of shitty decisions on both sides of the line.
I fully agree with this statement.
BFD! You can't seem to comprehend an intelligent argument so what difference does it make. You've had several current and former peace officers who've been in situations like this explain it to you over and over in great detail and you still don't get it. You ignore established policy, precedence, case law and procedures that have been explained to you over and over. I can overlook ignorance because you don't know what you don't know. But when the reality is explained to you numerous times by people who are trained and experienced and you ignore that and continue with your ridiculous arguments you've crossed the line from ignorant to stupid.
Stupid is inexcusable.
Got it, Always bow down to the cop. Stupid to do otherwise in this Free Country we call America. Bailey your America scares me but your'e right, cops own America. Keep feeding those that believe in a police state! (Either side)
I on the other hand think most cops are here to Protect and Serve. We still live under all of the Constitution including the 4th. Government powers are limited, including cops. Citizens wanting a warrant have every RIGHT to one regardless of "established policy, precedence, case law and procedures" which have been refuted even in this thread. Heres some more:
Liberty—the freedom from unwarranted intrusion by government—is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark.
Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
The last one sums up my feelings on this video.
Rucker61
05-16-2013, 09:28
Only if they can selectively delete 18 minutes at a time.
Well played, sir.
Bailey Guns
05-16-2013, 09:35
Got it, Always bow down to the cop. Stupid to do otherwise in this Free Country we call America. Bailey your America scares me but your'e right, cops own America. Keep feeding those that believe in a police state! (Either side)
You don't get anything. You show me one place where that sentiment (bow down to the cops) was expressed by anyone with my point of view in this argument. One place. No one ever said anything of the sort besides you, it's obvious and you know it. You can't have a rational discussion. You insist on tossing out emotional hyperbole like "bow down to the cops" and the "cops own America". You're intellectually bankrupt in this argument and your immature and irrational bullshit is really starting to push my buttons.
I've made two basic arguments in this thread:
1) There isn't enough information to make an informed decision on whether or not the police acted properly from the video. (This one can be debated because it's a matter of opinion.)
2) A warrant isn't always required to enter someone's home. (This one can't be debated regardless of your opinion. If you believe otherwise, you're wrong.)
That's it.
OK...3 basic arguments. The third being you're really being stupid on this issue. You're exactly the type of person I'd expect to see doing the same stupid shit as the guy in the video.
OneGuy67
05-16-2013, 09:39
Never said they had to go away and be done with it, just backoff and go get a warrant. You guys really must hate warrants? That would also be a 'WE' vote for.
If you have the power to end citizens freedom or even life.... I think cops should be on camera every second they wear the uniform. Courts are putting them in for this reason, they were put into cop cars for this reason. The truth is that in probably 99% of situatios they actually exonerate the cop. Cops deal with a lot of BS each and everyday. The video takes away any question of he-said-she-said and generally work for the cop. In those 1% times we get rid of the bad cop or make sure the right guy goes to jail.
Are there ANY cops on here that think those cops could have backed down or do we just stick with the brotherhood? That does not mean they have gone home, just backed down and gotten a warrant. Most people when asked if you can search X allow you to, some don't. That does not make them guilty or even suspect by law. Is there any scenario where the citizen does not have to bow down to the cop... If not, don't ask why people think there is a police state( as this guy states in the video). Don't give me the platitude that cops work for "us". Cops have a tough job and sometimes some people make it harder... Probably a lot of people but its not all about "Protect" there is also "Serve".
It is sad how much you are all protesting your right as cops to bust down a door because you feel like it, instead of agreeing to a calmer approach. This was not exigent, that much is clear from the video. There is a reason this thread was started and has had so many views. It was not "Hey... Look what a good job the cops did". Bailey and the rest immediatly jumped to defending the cops with "not enough to make a determination!" so..... What were you guys defending? This was questionable behavior from the beginning or it would not have been a thread (BTW it is not the only "cop doing what??" thread on this mostly conservative forum). All the cops on this thread have done is shown solidarity in the defense of that questionable act instead of a "Lessons Learned" where maybe they could have done things differently.
One last set of comments on this thread and I'll be done with this.
You really have no understanding the warrant system, case law, exigent circumstances or anything related to the topic. While there are circumstances and events which would allow for the officers to seize the residence pending a warrant, this wasn't one of them. In the event that a warrant would need to be obtained in some other circumstance, the officers will remove the people from the residence and hold the residence for the warrant. Remember, a search warrant is for the property (residence), not the people. The actions of the people are what brought the cops to the residence. For the record, I don't hate warrants. I get one to two a week signed by a judge. They have their place in our system.
Your argument that we all are sticking "to the brotherhood" or are blindly protecting other officers is naive. As stated previously, we do not like those in our profession who are bad, dirty or take shortcuts, which then prompt case law that makes our jobs more difficult. That being said, we have all been in situations not too terribly different than this one, and we are all very educated on current case law and how it pertains to us doing our job. Cherry picking certain quotes and attempting to relate them isn't case law.
The courts aren't requiring any agency to put in cameras; the use of cameras started way back in the early 90's with DUI cars. It was a VCR type system and were very expensive. As technology improved, so did the cost per unit price unit to where agencies employed them in more vehicles other than their traffic vehicles. My previous agency purchased them for all vehicles around 15 years ago, after an incident with a politically connected idiot. The line guys were slow to warm to them, but after a period of time, learned to use them to their advantage. Now, there are companies who are offering inexpensive body worn recording devices or devices within the Tasers for documenting high risk/low occurrence situations. No agency I am aware of requires their officers to use such devices, but I agree that the trend is coming.
Lastly, while you and I will disagree to the end on how enlightening that video is, I will continue to argue that it doesn't show enough to make a determination of anything. Do you know specifically what was relayed to the cops via the phone call reporting the incident? Do you know if the cops have been there previously or have had contact with the suspects previously and what that outcome was? Do you know if there was anyone else in the house or do you wish to take the word of the camera operator and require the cops to take his word as well? Do you know anything other than what that 90 seconds shows? If not, then making a judgment based upon it is ignorant.
I'm out. All yours BaileyGuns.
My only thing now- since just about every point we've made has been beaten to death... Bailey, you like gin? Gross... Tastes like pinesol. [Poke]
Bailey Guns
05-16-2013, 09:45
I'm out. All yours BaileyGuns.
Nope...I can no longer be civil. My "Moron Meter" has been pegged.
RblDiver
05-16-2013, 09:47
Bailey, you like gin? Gross... Tastes like pinesol. [Poke]
I always thought it tasted like bug repellent myself :P lol. I personally go for mead or rum.
Bailey Guns
05-16-2013, 09:47
My only thing now- since just about every point we've made has been beaten to death... Bailey, you like gin? Gross... Tastes like pinesol. [Poke]
That's because you're young, inexperienced and naive in the ways of the world. Good gin is nectar to the gods.
On the other hand, I've never drank Pinesol so maybe I shouldn't argue that point (but if it does, maybe I could learn to like house cleaning chores). Us Air Force guys have a more discerning palette than you Army guys.
Kraven251
05-16-2013, 09:50
My only two comments are....Did the cops really need to endanger the people in the house with guns drawn hot? And the did the guy in house really need to endanger his family by not complying to go outside? If it were me, I would be quick to go outside and address the issue in order not to escalate the situation. I would not have let them into the house. This is a series of shitty decisions on both sides of the line.
The last guy that complied and went outside was handcuffed and had his child taken by the Cali version of DCFS. Once you step outside of your house you do give up a ton of protections.
The whole situation is bad. I also see the sides of the issue, Bailey has valid points as does Hound. The reality is they are both correct, because there needs to be a balance. Right now it is largely comply or get beat, tazed, shot. In most cases though it is beneficial to everyone to keep a cool head and comply. However, the moment you don't feel safe about a situation, call 911 or your lawyer, and put the phone on speaker.
To the point, especially with DV where the call did not come from within the residence or from a phone registered to an occupant of that address, and there is no sign of anything being amiss upon approach ( No yelling, no doors slamming, no sounds of crying, or pools of blood on the floor when you look in the window), LEO's of all varieties need to back the fuck off. Everyone fights now and then, and if the nosey neighbor just heard something that wasn't screams of "Help" or something else related to that, everyone needs to enhance some calm.
Yes someone could be bleeding out in the bedroom or the bathroom, but if we continue to give up our rights to be free and safe in our own homes, we won't be free.
OneGuy67
05-16-2013, 09:51
That's because you're young, inexperienced and naive in the ways of the world. Good gin is nectar to the gods.
On the other hand, I've never drank Pinesol so maybe I shouldn't argue that point (but if it does, maybe I could learn to like house cleaning chores). Us Air Force guys have a more discerning palette than you Army guys.
Yup! Good gin is wonderful. A really good gin can be drank straight, chilled in a martini glass. The cheap stuff needs tonic and lots of lime!
Hey! Not all Army guys drink Pinesol; just the special ones like Ronin!
RblDiver
05-16-2013, 09:59
^ What kraven said. While I'm generally (read: 99/100) in favor of the police, there are a few times I most heartily disagree with their actions.
Was there more to the incident than we saw on the video? Definitely. ...But from what limited view there was, it seemed excessive (did they need to taze a guy holding a video camera? Again, perhaps he could have been holding a club in another hand so yes, but again, from the limited view...).
Was the guy an idiot? Assuredly. I would have gone out and discussed the issue with them, which probably would have diffused the situation. But, as Biden said, we in America have the right to be stupid. The Fourth was designed for a reason, and in cases of doubt, I would opt on the side of more liberty. Does that mean I think "you need a warrant in all cases?" No, but in cases where something isn't imminent, I would sure hope that would be the path to go, as outlined in the Fourth.
(Plus, anything from CA, aka the Land Where Everything Causes Cancer, raises an automatic red-flag lol)
The last guy that complied and went outside was handcuffed and had his child taken by the Cali version of DCFS. Once you step outside of your house you do give up a ton of protections.
The whole situation is bad. I also see the sides of the issue, Bailey has valid points as does Hound. The reality is they are both correct, because there needs to be a balance. Right now it is largely comply or get beat, tazed, shot. In most cases though it is beneficial to everyone to keep a cool head and comply. However, the moment you don't feel safe about a situation, call 911 or your lawyer, and put the phone on speaker.
To the point, especially with DV where the call did not come from within the residence or from a phone registered to an occupant of that address, and there is no sign of anything being amiss upon approach ( No yelling, no doors slamming, no sounds of crying, or pools of blood on the floor when you look in the window), LEO's of all varieties need to back the fuck off. Everyone fights now and then, and if the nosey neighbor just heard something that wasn't screams of "Help" or something else related to that, everyone needs to enhance some calm.
Yes someone could be bleeding out in the bedroom or the bathroom, but if we continue to give up our rights to be free and safe in our own homes, we won't be free.
You get it.
That's because you're young, inexperienced and naive in the ways of the world. Good gin is nectar to the gods.
On the other hand, I've never drank Pinesol so maybe I shouldn't argue that point (but if it does, maybe I could learn to like house cleaning chores). Us Air Force guys have a more discerning palette than you Army guys.
Well you do a lot more sitting that we ever will- so we need something that's easy to shoot- like Whiskey... Get in, get out, get on with the fight! [Coffee]
Yup! Good gin is wonderful. A really good gin can be drank straight, chilled in a martini glass. The cheap stuff needs tonic and lots of lime!
Hey! Not all Army guys drink Pinesol; just the special ones like Ronin!
Hey now! It was just one time... and there was $20 on the line. Besides, it was wet-teeshirt night at the local Joe Bar, I didn't wanna look like a wuss. [LOL]
Bailey Guns
05-16-2013, 10:16
You get it.
No, he doesn't.
No, he doesn't.
It's a cop thing.... Right?
No, he doesn't.
I'm gonna have to agree with Kraven on this- while yes, there are circumstances where police have just authority to enter a home, you have to recognize that those circumstances don't exist every single time. Kraven is right, the must be a balance. Someone please explain, at what point does police showing up and wanting to talk (not relative to the OP video, I'm talking in general) mean that you HAVE to talk with them? If it's a potential DV? What if it's a simple noise complaint from a neighbor? Do you really need to even give them the time of day? Not saying ignore them, but I'd like to know, if no law is clearly broken in the LE's presence, going just off of the RP (let's just say for argument's sake that the RP is not inside the house but a neighbor), where do you draw the line between exigent circumstances and hearsay? It kind of goes to a question I had a long time ago that I never was able to find an answer, if someone were to call in a REDDI report on me (do they still do this?) and a cop shows up, what grounds does he have for stopping me if he didn't witness anything that indicates I may be intoxicated? Serious question, not trying to incite argument.
So with all this heated, emotional talk, mostly between the LEOs/Former LEOs on here and those of us who have no LE experience, but also don't like hypothetical scenarios where our rights could be trampled, let's take a step back and all agree that there's not enough info to really make a call on the OP video... I think the main point of contention here is that some of us would like clarity, if the cops show up at your door, regardless of the call, do you necessarily have to comply with their orders if there is zero evidence of a crime being or having been committed (going based on outside witness statement)? At what point is them kicking your door down justified if there is no evidence of a crime? Not trying to argue- I've never had the cops come to my door in an instance where my door could be kicked down, but I also step outside and speak with them cordially and respectfully.
Bailey Guns
05-16-2013, 10:45
It's a cop thing.... Right?
Wrong. It's a "law" thing.
OneGuy67
05-16-2013, 10:57
I'm gonna have to agree with Kraven on this- while yes, there are circumstances where police have just authority to enter a home, you have to recognize that those circumstances don't exist every single time. Kraven is right, the must be a balance. Someone please explain, at what point does police showing up and wanting to talk (not relative to the OP video, I'm talking in general) mean that you HAVE to talk with them? If it's a potential DV? What if it's a simple noise complaint from a neighbor? Do you really need to even give them the time of day? Not saying ignore them, but I'd like to know, if no law is clearly broken in the LE's presence, going just off of the RP (let's just say for argument's sake that the RP is not inside the house but a neighbor), where do you draw the line between exigent circumstances and hearsay? It kind of goes to a question I had a long time ago that I never was able to find an answer, if someone were to call in a REDDI report on me (do they still do this?) and a cop shows up, what grounds does he have for stopping me if he didn't witness anything that indicates I may be intoxicated? Serious question, not trying to incite argument.
So with all this heated, emotional talk, mostly between the LEOs/Former LEOs on here and those of us who have no LE experience, but also don't like hypothetical scenarios where our rights could be trampled, let's take a step back and all agree that there's not enough info to really make a call on the OP video... I think the main point of contention here is that some of us would like clarity, if the cops show up at your door, regardless of the call, do you necessarily have to comply with their orders if there is zero evidence of a crime being or having been committed (going based on outside witness statement)? At what point is them kicking your door down justified if there is no evidence of a crime? Not trying to argue- I've never had the cops come to my door in an instance where my door could be kicked down, but I also step outside and speak with them cordially and respectfully.
Welcome to law enforcement; the only profession in which the average Joe believes he can do it better than those in uniform. You don't hear anyone stating how they can do the job of their doctor, dentist, chiropractor, real estate person, insurance person, gunsmith, or anyone else's occupation or profession better than they can.
Your questions are those that the rookie learns while in the Field Training Program and from senior officers the first several years of their careers. You want a short answer to a years long learning curve.
Kraven251
05-16-2013, 10:59
Welcome to law enforcement; the only profession in which the average Joe believes he can do it better than those in uniform. You don't hear anyone stating how they can do the job of their doctor, dentist, chiropractor, real estate person, insurance person, gunsmith, or anyone else's occupation or profession better than they can.
Your questions are those that the rookie learns while in the Field Training Program and from senior officers the first several years of their careers. You want a short answer to a years long learning curve.
Well, you answered the question, "It's a training thing" [Beer]
Kraven251
05-16-2013, 11:04
http://www.legalzoom.com/everyday-law/home-leisure/can-police-search-your
because the internet is my friend and largely supports my original statement
...though I still don't agree with the sure, come on in...look around without a damn good explanation.
Chad4000
05-16-2013, 11:10
Welcome to law enforcement; the only profession in which the average Joe believes he can do it better than those in uniform. You don't hear anyone stating how they can do the job of their doctor, dentist, chiropractor, real estate person, insurance person, gunsmith, or anyone else's occupation or profession better than they can.
Your questions are those that the rookie learns while in the Field Training Program and from senior officers the first several years of their careers. You want a short answer to a years long learning curve.
dentists and chiropractors dont have the power to come into your living room... that's why it's pretty personal for folks I would say..
oh, and I def would have covered better then Rahim moore in the playoffs.. ;)
OneGuy67
05-16-2013, 11:14
dentists and chiropractors dont have the power to come into your living room... that's why it's pretty personal for folks I would say..
oh, and I def would have covered better then Rahim moore in the playoffs.. ;)
They do have the ability to hold your life in their hands...
Rahim Moore...Touche!
Chad4000
05-16-2013, 11:17
Rahim Moore...Touche!
hahaa [Flower]
[Coffee]
RblDiver
05-16-2013, 11:21
They do have the ability to hold your life in their hands...
They don't have the Fourth breathing down their necks (not to mention going to them is a voluntary act).
Bailey Guns
05-16-2013, 11:27
I'm gonna have to agree with Kraven on this- while yes, there are circumstances where police have just authority to enter a home, you have to recognize that those circumstances don't exist every single time. Kraven is right, the must be a balance. Someone please explain, at what point does police showing up and wanting to talk (not relative to the OP video, I'm talking in general) mean that you HAVE to talk with them? If it's a potential DV? What if it's a simple noise complaint from a neighbor? Do you really need to even give them the time of day? Not saying ignore them, but I'd like to know, if no law is clearly broken in the LE's presence, going just off of the RP (let's just say for argument's sake that the RP is not inside the house but a neighbor), where do you draw the line between exigent circumstances and hearsay? It kind of goes to a question I had a long time ago that I never was able to find an answer, if someone were to call in a REDDI report on me (do they still do this?) and a cop shows up, what grounds does he have for stopping me if he didn't witness anything that indicates I may be intoxicated? Serious question, not trying to incite argument.
So with all this heated, emotional talk, mostly between the LEOs/Former LEOs on here and those of us who have no LE experience, but also don't like hypothetical scenarios where our rights could be trampled, let's take a step back and all agree that there's not enough info to really make a call on the OP video... I think the main point of contention here is that some of us would like clarity, if the cops show up at your door, regardless of the call, do you necessarily have to comply with their orders if there is zero evidence of a crime being or having been committed (going based on outside witness statement)? At what point is them kicking your door down justified if there is no evidence of a crime? Not trying to argue- I've never had the cops come to my door in an instance where my door could be kicked down, but I also step outside and speak with them cordially and respectfully.
For cryin' out loud. Who said (besides Hound and his over-the-top hyperbole) "those circumstances" exist every time? And there is balance. In emergency circumstances you don't need a warrant. In most other instances you will. That's balance and it's court-approved balance.
In answer to the rest of your post, go back and reread the thread. Every one of your questions has been answered by at least one person.
Now let's look at why Kraven DOESN'T get it:
The last guy that complied and went outside was handcuffed and had his child taken by the Cali version of DCFS. Once you step outside of your house you do give up a ton of protections.
Where did you get this information? It wasn't in the video in the OP. Not saying it didn't happen but we don't have that info from the OP's video.
The whole situation is bad. I also see the sides of the issue, Bailey has valid points as does Hound.
What point did he make regarding the legality of warrantless entry that was valid?
The reality is they are both correct, because there needs to be a balance. Right now it is largely comply or get beat, tazed, shot. In most cases though it is beneficial to everyone to keep a cool head and comply. However, the moment you don't feel safe about a situation, call 911 or your lawyer, and put the phone on speaker.
Yes. Comply. If the police are wrong you have a means for justice. It's called a civil suit. And I've already explained the balance part, Mr Miyagi.
To the point, especially with DV where the call did not come from within the residence or from a phone registered to an occupant of that address, and there is no sign of anything being amiss upon approach ( No yelling, no doors slamming, no sounds of crying, or pools of blood on the floor when you look in the window), LEO's of all varieties need to back the fuck off.
No, they don't. They need to do their job based on procedure, policy and legal theory...which begs the question, upon what legal theory are you basing this? Are you saying there can't possibly be a crime being committed if it wasn't reported by a phone tied to that address? This is one of the worst thought out statements I've seen in this thread by anyone other than Hound.
Here's why that statement is stupid:
Imagine a scenario (here we go with the what ifs) where an ex-boyfriend is following his ex-girlfriend. She has a Restraining Order (RO) against him and she calls 911 to report he's following her. She drives to her girlfriends home (different from her own home). She runs into the house screaming to the 911 dispatcher via her cell phone that ex has a knife and will kill her but she doesn't have time to give a name or description. Ex follows her into the home and chases her and her friend into the basement. He then ties them both up and duct-tapes their mouths. He tells them he's going to kill them if the cops show up. The cops show up. There was no call from any phone tied to this residence (one of Kraven's criteria). There is no sign anything is amiss...no sign of a struggle, nothing. Cops can't see any evidence of a crime. Everything looks normal (Kraven's other criteria). Cops contact ex-boyfriend through the now-locked door. He refuses to allow them to enter. He claims ex-girlfriend and her friend are not there. He explains he's in the house feeding the cat and doesn't know the girl who called. No sign of forced entry and no one reported a burglary. Cops suspect he's the the ex-boyfriend but they're not sure. A car parked out front is registered to someone who has the same name and DOB as the person on the RO obtained by the ex-girlfriend. But the ex-boyfriend gives the police a false name and says the owner of the car is his friend and he borrowed it (gives them ex-boyfriend's name as the "friend"). But, the cops don't have a phone call from within the residence or from a phone associated with the residence and nothing looks out of the ordinary upon arrival (neither of Kraven's criteria are met). They say, "Gee. That's too bad. We were hoping to get inside and have a look around but since you're not the guy and you won't let us in and everything looks normal we're gonna leave. Have a nice day." Ex-boyfriend then kills the two women.
Everyone fights now and then, and if the nosey neighbor just heard something that wasn't screams of "Help" or something else related to that, everyone needs to enhance some calm.
Yes someone could be bleeding out in the bedroom or the bathroom, but if we continue to give up our rights to be free and safe in our own homes, we won't be free.
Yeah. What about the rights of the person bleeding out in the bedroom or bathroom. I guess they're just shit outta luck, huh?
Anybody else notice how liberally Bailey throws around "Stupid"? If you don't agree with him or the cops point of view....
In Bailey's America, only cops know the secret sauce. The rest of us are stupid for even asking.
RblDiver
05-16-2013, 11:37
Yes. Comply. If the police are wrong you have a means for justice. It's called a civil suit. And I've already explained the balance part, Mr Miyagi.
As I have said before, while yes compliance is probably the safest bet, you shouldn't _have_ to comply and _have_ to take it to a civil suit. The Fourth says that you have a right to be secure in your person etc, not that you have a right to sue if you aren't secure in your person.
To put it in a different context for this forum's general style, I see it as the difference between "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" vs "the right to bring claim against the government if you aren't permitted to keep and bear arms."
BushMasterBoy
05-16-2013, 11:40
I'm sure being a cop for 15 years will make you jaded. Same as a FBI agent chasing terrorists or a soldier on his fourth tour of Afghanistan. I wouldn't take anything printed in this forum seriously. Now I have to get back to building my bunker...
As I have said before, while yes compliance is probably the safest bet, you shouldn't _have_ to comply and _have_ to take it to a civil suit. The Fourth says that you have a right to be secure in your person etc, not that you have a right to sue if you aren't secure in your person.
To put it in a different context for this forum's general style, I see it as the difference between "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" vs "the right to bring claim against the government if you aren't permitted to keep and bear arms."
Good point
Yes. Comply. If the police are wrong you have a means for justice. It's called a civil suit. And I've already explained the balance part, Mr Miyagi.
Okay, devil's advocate time here- Is the court system the ONLY place you can stand against LE? I'm not saying that whole "fuck the po-lice, fight the system" crap, no I'm talking in the instance where it maybe a little unclear (not just from the contact's perspective) whether or not there exists circumstances for warrant-less search or entry, or what have you. Is the only place the courts? Again, not arguing, I really want to know if I need to set up a 3rd savings account aside from my emergency car repairs fund and legal defense fund for a "take LE to court if the need arises" fund... because as you state, the only place to stand up to cops (be they right or wholly wrong) is in court. That's basically saying if in the off chance that a LEO oversteps his/her bounds, or violates any constitutional right, you have to spend money... because politely refusing consent to an illegal search when someone makes a minor, human error or oversight, could get you into hot water. Not saying this happens a lot, but I am saying, like the rest of us, LE is not imperfect, they make mistakes too, I just would hate to have to spend a shitload of money to combat that mistake in court (and I'm not guaranteed a settlement that pays for my lawyer). See where I'm going with this? Again, not trying to stir up argument, but saying "the only place to stand up to when a cop makes a mistake is in court, on your own dime," sounds a bit like "it's okay, let people walk all over you, fight it later at your own expense." Thanks, but no.
ETA: I only point this out because I have been threatened by a LEO before because they were wrong on something, but were too stubborn or whatever to admit they were wrong, and when I tried to politely correct their mistaken idea, they took it as an affront to their authority and experience. No, you just make a mistake, admit you're wrong and we can be pals, no need to threaten me.
So if all it takes is a phone call to get a possible DV charge on you, what's stopping a vengeful neighbor from calling in their neighbor for no reason?
I understand cops are put in ridiculously bad spots all day long. Especially dealing with a lot of idiots out there. So please take my question seriously. I know the standard and easiest solution is to say "Well, talk to the cops and if nothing is going on, then there's nothing to worry about." and that's what I would generally do. However, it's my understanding that DV calls are handled very seriously (which is what most of the LEO's on here are confirming) and a simple "everything is fine" may not solve the situation. On DV calls, isn't someone usually taken away from the situation? Whether that's to a hotel or jail? Or is that only when the husband and wife confirm there was fighting but it's ok now? At that point, do they recommend one person leave the premises? If everything looks and sounds fine, do ALL cops just leave and say "Don't make me come back"?
What if I'm just watching a movie such as "Enough" very loudly with my wife and a neighbor thinks I'm beating my wife? Will both of us going outside and confirming things are fine be enough to have the cops leave with no other repercussions? Yes, I understand the "Well just take the easy route and go tell them its fine" option. I agree that it's probably the best and easiest option for all involved but some may not feel this way. After all, the cops are basically there because you're watching a movie too loud. Some neighbor just got a little antsy.
This also brings up the point of why it's good to have a relationship with your neighbors/neighborhood. So you know when there's real cause for concern versus a movie too loud.
FWIW, I have no problem with dealing with cops. I'm always polite to them and never try to be an asshole to them. The favor is usually returned. But because DV calls are handled so seriously, they can be over reacted to, on both sides. The last thing I want is a bogus DV charge/accusation because a cop felt he HAD to do something because of a neighbor's phone call.
If I'm "assuming the worst" too much, go ahead and say so. It just seems crazy to me that a simple phone call can lead to a huge debacle (assuming the cop and homeowner butt heads enough). Are there any repercussions to the neighbor that gets over zealous on their phone calls?
Okay, devil's advocate time here- Is the court system the ONLY place you can stand against LE? I'm not saying that whole "fuck the po-lice, fight the system" crap, no I'm talking in the instance where it maybe a little unclear (not just from the contact's perspective) whether or not there exists circumstances for warrant-less search or entry, or what have you. Is the only place the courts? Again, not arguing, I really want to know if I need to set up a 3rd savings account aside from my emergency car repairs fund and legal defense fund for a "take LE to court if the need arises" fund... because as you state, the only place to stand up to cops (be they right or wholly wrong) is in court. That's basically saying if in the off chance that a LEO oversteps his/her bounds, or violates any constitutional right, you have to spend money... because politely refusing consent to an illegal search when someone makes a minor, human error or oversight, could get you into hot water. Not saying this happens a lot, but I am saying, like the rest of us, LE is not imperfect, they make mistakes too, I just would hate to have to spend a shitload of money to combat that mistake in court (and I'm not guaranteed a settlement that pays for my lawyer). See where I'm going with this? Again, not trying to stir up argument, but saying "the only place to stand up to when a cop makes a mistake is in court, on your own dime," sounds a bit like "it's okay, let people walk all over you, fight it later at your own expense." Thanks, but no.
ETA: I only point this out because I have been threatened by a LEO before because they were wrong on something, but were too stubborn or whatever to admit they were wrong, and when I tried to politely correct their mistaken idea, they took it as an affront to their authority and experience. No, you just make a mistake, admit you're wrong and we can be pals, no need to threaten me.
No/sort of, but the court system is the Ultimate Authority, sometimes LEO's do bad things and the Department or the DA can take actions against the LEO and its settled, but in difficult cases where things fall into a grey area of the law the case is typically determined one way or the other by the court system, that's why we always site Case Law, for this specific scenario it was decided in the State of Colorado Vs. John Doe, every Department I know of has regular updates to changes in the Law, and if you can go through the entire session without falling asleep your a better man then me, this next update should be pretty interesting but until these new laws are tested in court they can really hammer the beat cops unless policy is clearly defined, Obviously you can take it to Civil Court.
Its much like these new Gun Laws that take effect in July, I am not going to get all spun up until these laws clear the court system, Sheriff Maketa(sp) recently noted that 53 of Colorado's 62 Sheriff's are filing an injunction against some of the new laws, people are either happy or pissed of by this action when in fact this is the way the system works, let the courts decide, that's where the term unenforceable comes from(in this case)
The thing is that in most cases where its difficult to differentiate a persons civil rights against say exigent circumstances the person involved will be in limbo until it is decided, and that can certainly go all the way to SCOTUS so imagine how long the wait could be and the person in question could certainly be in prison while he or she waits, you can research that all day long some cases are pretty sad, but a vast majority of LEO's do not want to do anything other then make sure they are doing their job COMPLETELY as supported by the Laws of the State, yeah there are yahoo's out there on both sides and that's why I say all anyone has to do is be clear, concise and cooperative when discussing issues with LE, once everything has been cleared up hopefully everyone can laugh about it and go about their way, but by being argumentative and hiding behind a door you better know what your rights are according to the law.
Look I got interviewed by LE 10 years ago, I was driving my Girlfriend and her son from a four wheeling trip in Montrose to their house in Fruita, we were going down highway 6/50 and if you don't know the area in Grand Junction there are car lots on both sides of the highway, well my future Son decides this would be a great time for a Slug Bug competition, ok now I am driving a crew cab long bed truck with a 26' flatbed and my Jeep on the trailer in rush hour traffic so obviously I am not paying attention to the local car lots so I am getting pounded! After five miles of this I pull over and start dealing some justice! nothing harsh I never left a mark on him we were all laughing our asses off, so I get back on the road and in a couple miles I have CSP pulling me over and make no mistake this Trooper was at an elevated level hands on his weapon so I knew things were pretty hot, so I turned my truck off rolled down the window and placed both hands on the steering wheel, the Trooper made it very clear that he was investigating a possible DV and Child Abuse in progress, needless to say we cooperated completely and after a short stop (and sincerest apologies to the Trooper)we were on our way again, laughing.
The point is that anyone can call 911, you don't know what LE is there for and typically they will tell you up front why they are there, be clear concise and cooperative. If you have a beef then you can take that up after your interview.
It's a cop thing.... Right?
No. Not at all. Not even close. If you are willing to divulge what kind of job you have, I may be able to draw some parallels to help you put this conversation into the proper perspective.
OneGuy67
05-16-2013, 12:35
So if all it takes is a phone call to get a possible DV charge on you, what's stopping a vengeful neighbor from calling in their neighbor for no reason?
I understand cops are put in ridiculously bad spots all day long. Especially dealing with a lot of idiots out there. So please take my question seriously. I know the standard and easiest solution is to say "Well, talk to the cops and if nothing is going on, then there's nothing to worry about." and that's what I would generally do. However, it's my understanding that DV calls are handled very seriously (which is what most of the LEO's on here are confirming) and a simple "everything is fine" may not solve the situation. On DV calls, isn't someone usually taken away from the situation? Whether that's to a hotel or jail? Or is that only when the husband and wife confirm there was fighting but it's ok now? At that point, do they recommend one person leave the premises? If everything looks and sounds fine, do ALL cops just leave and say "Don't make me come back"?
What if I'm just watching a movie such as "Enough" very loudly with my wife and a neighbor thinks I'm beating my wife? Will both of us going outside and confirming things are fine be enough to have the cops leave with no other repercussions? Yes, I understand the "Well just take the easy route and go tell them its fine" option. I agree that it's probably the best and easiest option for all involved but some may not feel this way. After all, the cops are basically there because you're watching a movie too loud. Some neighbor just got a little antsy.
This also brings up the point of why it's good to have a relationship with your neighbors/neighborhood. So you know when there's real cause for concern versus a movie too loud.
FWIW, I have no problem with dealing with cops. I'm always polite to them and never try to be an asshole to them. The favor is usually returned. But because DV calls are handled so seriously, they can be over reacted to, on both sides. The last thing I want is a bogus DV charge/accusation because a cop felt he HAD to do something because of a neighbor's phone call.
If I'm "assuming the worst" too much, go ahead and say so. It just seems crazy to me that a simple phone call can lead to a huge debacle (assuming the cop and homeowner butt heads enough). Are there any repercussions to the neighbor that gets over zealous on their phone calls?
Your neighbor can call on you all day long. It does happen, not often, but it does. It is up to the officer assigned to the call to assess the situation. Believe it or not, we actually do have brains in our heads, have a bit of experience in dealing with people and are pretty good at determining when someone is lying to us. When we come to the door, we are looking for the totality of circumstances to make a determination of what is going on. If you come to the door and are surprised to see us, are calm and polite and laugh or smile when we explain why we are there and you proceed to explain the movie situation, then that is a what we call "a clue" in determining whether or not a crime has or is occurring.
I've been called to loud disturbance calls at residences where two people are just having a loud argument. Nothing else. Just not getting along and living in the same space. It happens. Quite often. We usually would recommend that one party leave, but we can't force that if both parties are legal participants of the residence or domicile. Sometimes, one party agrees to leave, sometimes not. It is dependent upon finances, on having a place to go (couch crash somewhere) or other factors. Not all can do this.
DV is the one crime in which law enforcement's hands are tied and if there is evidence of a crime, then we must enforce the law. No discretion in this, but I go back to this: THERE MUST BE EVIDENCE OF A CRIME FOR AN ARREST. It is HIGHLY UNLIKELY you would get a bogus DV charge based upon a neighbors call and nothing else.
DV is the one crime in which law enforcement's hands are tied and if there is evidence of a crime, then we must enforce the law. No discretion in this, but I go back to this: THERE MUST BE EVIDENCE OF A CRIME FOR AN ARREST. It is HIGHLY UNLIKELY you would get a bogus DV charge based upon a neighbors call and nothing else.
Thanks. That was my primary question. I've dealt with cops for various reasons and never had any issues. I actually find most are cool as long as you're not wasting their time or being a jackass. My sister got a DV charge from her husband for poking him in the chest (self admitted) so while its minor, there was evidence so someone had to go. Just didn't know how far suspicions can extend in the eyes of the law.
Great-Kazoo
05-16-2013, 13:47
I'll just leave this here from another thread.
They would lose in court, waste money in the mean time, but lose. I assume the camera's from the cop cars would be enough to stop it before even that.
Believe it or not, we actually do have brains in our heads, have a bit of experience in dealing with people and are pretty good at determining when someone is lying to us.
The first two, I usually assume everyone should know, but as far as the lying thing goes, I can't imagine any other profession where someone is lied to more than LEO... maybe a dentist... "Of course I've been flossing!" [ROFL1]
Thanks for the point of clarity OneGuy. [Beer]
buckshotbarlow
05-16-2013, 15:09
I just got off the phone with my buddy, same thing kind of happened to him...He's out working on his 4runner, next thing he knows he's in cuffs. Sheriff's haul him in for DV charge. He's girlfriend wasn't even at the house, so we're wondering who called it in. We both suspect it's his dikhead neighbor since the neighbor has my buddies shotgun. First appearance in court, the girlfriend shows up and tells the DA that this is BS, and that there's absolutely no DV. DA continues with the prosecution...WTF is going on anymore in both the courts and the popo with DV...
Having been involved in more than one DV contact, here's how it went for me in Falcon (EPSO).
(Before Divorce) Wife threw everything I owned out the 2nd floor window into the back yard while I was at a friends house. I contacted a LE friend of mine and was advised to take pictures and contact the Sheriff's office to file a report. When the Deputies arrived, I asked them come see what she had done. They asked if anything was damaged. I said yes. They told me that if they saw the damage, they would have no choice but to take her to jail. I told them that I did not want her to go to jail, but just wanted them to tell her that she cannot do this type of thing. They explained Colorado DV law to her and left.
(Divorce Filed, still living together) I wanted to take my 3yo daughter to a LE friends house. Wife did not want me to. I said I was going to anyway and she called 911. I waited for the Deputies to arrive. I answered the door and one asked me to come out onto the porch and talk while the other was invited inside to talk to the wife. I explained the situation to the Deputy on the porch, and everything seemed fine. Soon, the Deputy inside came out and berated me. Not sure what the wife told him, but she was quite the actress. They asked if I had a place to go and spend the night. I said I did, but inquired about whether or not I had to leave. They informed me that I did not have to, but asked if I trusted the wife to not make up a story as soon as they left. I considered their point, packed a bag, and went to a friends house.
(TRO filed) My 1st Sgt called me while I was off base at lunch and informed me that the EPSO was on base to serve me a restraining order. I told him to have them serve me at my house, as I was heading that way to pack my stuff. I contacted an LE friend and he said to take his wife with me to the house as a witness in case my wife was home. As soon as we arrived, my wife called 911. My witness informed her that I had not yet been served, was not violating anything, and was simply there to pack a bag. Witness then sat on the couch and BS'd with wife's 16yo daughter about school. Wife and daughter soon left in her car. EPSO arrived and I invited them in and asked if I could retrieve my bags and leave. They escorted me upstairs and asked if I had any guns in my bag. I said yes and that I have a CCW. They told me they did not believe I could have any guns due to the TRO. They took my CCW and called it in to confirm whether or not I could keep it or the guns. Found out, due to Brady, I can not. I asked if I could lock up a couple of stray guns in my basement safe and they said I could. I locked them up and removed the electronic lock. They walked me out and I went to stay with my LE friend. They seemed very sympathetic to my situation and we got along fine. I later got a copy of my wife's 911 call on CD. She was telling the dispatcher that I had been served and was heading upstairs to retrieve a gun. The dispatcher told her to hurry and get out of the house and that she would speed-up the responding Deputies. She is quite the actress.
(TRO granted, living at LE friends house) I get a call from a Deputy asking if I was on a certain road in my neighborhood that afternoon. I said yes, I am staying with a friend off that road. Wife also living off the same road .5 miles away. He said he was investigating a report from the wife that I "chased" her down the road earlier. I said I did not notice her, and did not even know what vehicle she was currently driving - she had recently totaled her vehicle. He said no problem, and that was the end of it.
(PRO granted, still living at LE friends house) I get a call from a Deputy asking if I had been to my house recently. I informed him that I had a PRO and could not go near the house and that I had not. He stated that he was currently in the basement and my gun safe was open and could not be re-locked because the electronic lock was missing. He said he was going to have to take all of my guns to the office to secure them. I asked if I could have my LE friend come by with the lock and secure the safe. He said he could, and the friend did. The wife knew the combination, and that is why I took the lock with me when I left. I called a few locksmiths and found out that the electronic lock is nothing more than an input device much like a PC keyboard. All she had to do was purchase or borrow an electronic lock for the same make of safe, plug it in, and punch in the combination.
Summary: I had numerous contacts with LE involving the most vindictive, psychotic, evil ex-wife attempting to set me up. I was able to calmly tell my side of the story and the LE officers were smart enough to understand the situation.
Follow-up: I got the PRO dismissed 5 years later and got a new CCW. I am now married to an LE officer and have a greater understanding of the darker side of society. I Just pray she remains unharmed seven more months until retirement.
Bailey Guns
05-16-2013, 15:41
Anybody else notice how liberally Bailey throws around "Stupid"? If you don't agree with him or the cops point of view....
In Bailey's America, only cops know the secret sauce. The rest of us are stupid for even asking.
Yeah, and I explained the difference between ignorant and stupid. That probably went over your head, too.
Not gonna quote it, but Jesus, Davsel- sounds like you were forced to run quite the gauntlet there... Glad everything worked out in the end, but sorry you had to endure that kind of crazy. Best lesson to take from all that, don't be crazy and wound up when LE arrives, remain calm, cool, and respectful and even if you do get put in metal bracelets at least they can mention in the report that you were cooperative and calm the entire time- which from what my lawyer buddy tells me works out in your favor quite frequently.
OneGuy67
05-16-2013, 15:48
I just got off the phone with my buddy, same thing kind of happened to him...He's out working on his 4runner, next thing he knows he's in cuffs. Sheriff's haul him in for DV charge. He's girlfriend wasn't even at the house, so we're wondering who called it in. We both suspect it's his dikhead neighbor since the neighbor has my buddies shotgun. First appearance in court, the girlfriend shows up and tells the DA that this is BS, and that there's absolutely no DV. DA continues with the prosecution...WTF is going on anymore in both the courts and the popo with DV...
There has got to be more to the story...
There has got to be more to the story...
Yup, that's what I was thinking, expecially when the gf isn't even home... he's probably lying and someone needs to nip it in the butt...
Sorry, shit's been getting pretty tense in here, so I thought I'd inject a little humor. [Coffee]
CroiDhubh
05-16-2013, 16:12
Yup, that's what I was thinking, expecially when the gf isn't even home... he's probably lying and someone needs to nip it in the butt...
Sorry, shit's been getting pretty tense in here, so I thought I'd inject a little humor. [Coffee]
[facepalm][ROFL2]
Not gonna quote it, but Jesus, Davsel- sounds like you were forced to run quite the gauntlet there... Glad everything worked out in the end, but sorry you had to endure that kind of crazy. Best lesson to take from all that, don't be crazy and wound up when LE arrives, remain calm, cool, and respectful and even if you do get put in metal bracelets at least they can mention in the report that you were cooperative and calm the entire time- which from what my lawyer buddy tells me works out in your favor quite frequently.
DO NOT MARRY A CRAZY WOMAN - no matter how good looking she is. And if she has two kids by two previous guys - RED FLAG.
Yes, just stay calm and respectful - it will most likely work out for you in the end.
BTW, DV is a no joke crime in Colorado. Familiarize yourself with the law . I'd be willing to bet there are a great number of people who have violated the letter of the law at one time or another without realizing it. For example: You argue with your wife in the morning and she locks you out of the bedroom that evening because she is upset with you and wants you to sleep downstairs. You retrieve the little pin key thingy, unlock the door, and enter the bedroom against her protest. You just committed Domestic Violence according to Colorado law.
It really is impossible to overcome an accusation of "intimidation" when you are a large man arguing with a small woman - if the woman is evil. Choose wisely.
Proverbs 21:19 (DRA)
It is better to dwell in a wilderness, than with a quarrelsome and passionate woman.
Proverbs 27:15 (DRA)
Roofs dropping through in a cold day, and a contentious woman are alike.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/?app=00075&view=full&interface=1&docinfo=off&searchtype=get&search=C.R.S.+18-6-800.3
I'll just leave this here from another thread.
They would lose in court, waste money in the mean time, but lose. I assume the camera's from the cop cars would be enough to stop it before even that.
And that was from a shooting that I understood to happen in front of cop cars...... With cameras (I assumed because I was/am not sure but I hope is the case)......Where I agreed that the cops acted correctly.... The guy there was committing suicide by cop...... He was wrong... Flat out..... And.....this has what to do with cops busting down an unarmed guys door to his home with family and kids around, getting tazzed while he is holding a camera... I missed something here.
One case I agree with the cops actions the other I don't.... What is the point?
OneGuy67
05-16-2013, 16:44
For example: You argue with your wife in the morning and she locks you out of the bedroom that evening because she is upset with you and wants you to sleep downstairs. You retrieve the little pin key thingy, unlock the door, and enter the bedroom against her protest. You just committed Domestic Violence according to Colorado law.
Ugh. Okay. Exactly what statute would have been violated in this?
And, as a side note: There is no actual criminal violation called 'Domestic Violence'; it is a definition and a sentence enhancer based upon the definition and a violation of some relevant state statute. Example: C.R.S. 18-3-204 is Assault in the 3rd Degree, a class 1 Misdemeanor. Can be charged if two people get into an altercation. If that altercation is between parties as defined in C.R.S. 18-6-800.3, then after 18-3-204 is placed on the Probable Cause statement and booking sheet, 18-6-800.3 is added with the statement, "An Act of Domestic Violence".
http://www.cobar.org/index.cfm/ID/21062
Domestic violence can include: (Source SD (http://www.cobar.org/index.cfm/ID/25/DPDVP/Acknowledgments/)) Physical Violence
pushing, shoving, slapping, biting, kicking, choking, pinching, pulling hair, hitting, grabbing, beating
stabbing, shooting
purposely locking out of the house
abandoning in dangerous places
throwing objects
destruction of property
subjecting to reckless driving
threatening with a weapon
refusing victim help while sick or pregnant
any physical restraint
purposely cutting off victim’s hair
use of any object to inflict pain, punishment, or to intimidate
Sexual Abuse
telling anti-women, homophobic jokes to humiliate, embarrass, intimidate, or hurt
forcing sex
rape
unwanted fondling and touching
ritual abuse
sexual innuendos
accusation of promiscuity or infidelity
forcing victim to dress in a more sexual way than is comfortable for her/him
forcing victim to strip or perform other sexual acts
forcing sex while others watch, or with objects, or after beatings
using sex to bargain or withhold for punishment or manipulation
Emotional Abuse
ignoring emotionally
yelling at for small actions
calling victim names, using put downs, demeaning
constantly over-criticizing or telling victim she/he is fat, ugly, stupid
telling victim she/he cannot do certain things well
threatening
harassing
isolating from friends and family, forbidding to socialize, drive, work, or make certain decisions
threatening suicide or homicide
threatening abandonment, kidnapping of children, calling social services or law enforcement, outing, hurting family, friends, and/or pets
manipulating with lies and contradictions
punishing by withholding affection or appreciation
not encouraging victim to build self-esteem
little or no communication
blaming
humiliating in public or private
stalking
setting time limits
preventing victim from leaving the house
disconnecting the phone
hiding the car keys
preventing victim from going to a place of worship or from praying
abusing a pet
destroying victim's treasures
Economic Abuse
taking all the money from a joint account
stealing joint property or possessions
withholding money
forbidding victim to work
forcing victim to ask for money
not allowing access to any financial documents
not allowing any input into financial decisions
not allowing any control over or access to money, financial statements, and documents
requiring receipts and exact change for financial transactions
ruining victim’s credit
forcing victim to work while partner refuses to
requiring victim to turn over every paycheck to partner
preventing victim from getting or keeping a job (including not providing agreed upon childcare or transportation, or destroying work clothes/uniforms)
harassing victim at work
refusing to pay child support
A lot of that seems like hogwash but I don't know. That's just what a quick search produced.
Ugh. Okay. Exactly what statute would have been violated in this?
And, as a side note: There is no actual criminal violation called 'Domestic Violence'; it is a definition and a sentence enhancer based upon the definition and a violation of some relevant state statute. Example: C.R.S. 18-3-204 is Assault in the 3rd Degree, a class 1 Misdemeanor. Can be charged if two people get into an altercation. If that altercation is between parties as defined in C.R.S. 18-6-800.3, then after 18-3-204 is placed on the Probable Cause statement and booking sheet, 18-6-800.3 is added with the statement, "An Act of Domestic Violence".
Really do not want to get into a legal pissing contest. You surely know more than I in this area. I am just going off what the LE officers, attorneys, judges, and DV prevention instructors told me.
As explained to me, any form of perceived intimidation falls under the definition of Domestic Violence. If your partner wants to leave the room and you stand in the doorway to block their exit, it can apply. If your partner attempts to remove them-self from an argument by locking a door and you open it, it can apply. If your partner picks up a phone to make a call and you hang it up, it can apply. If you break anything belonging to your partner in anger, it can apply. If you make any statement to your partner that can be "perceived" as a threat, it can apply. If you put your fist through a wall when your wife admits to having an affair, it most certainly does apply - got me a PRO.
I believe most people think it only applies to hands-on activity. I just want to inform others that it is actually a much broader subjective definition, and they should be very careful.
OneGuy67
05-16-2013, 17:13
Great Dave. Thanks for the list. Once again, what statute was violated in your example? You can't violate a list.
Great Dave. Thanks for the list. Once again, what statute was violated in your example? You can't violate a list.
I'm going to go with:
What is 18-3-206. Menacing, Alex?
Great Dave. Thanks for the list. Once again, what statute was violated in your example? You can't violate a list.
I understand. This is why it's good to be having this conversation. There's A LOT of misinformation out there. Davsel mentioned that it pertains to intimidation, not just physical abuse. Is that correct or not? This is the stuff I want to know. So please give me correct info so I don't look like a 'tard if some crazy lady accuses me of something in the future.
Great-Kazoo
05-16-2013, 17:41
And that was from a shooting that I understood to happen in front of cop cars...... With cameras (I assumed because I was/am not sure but I hope is the case)......Where I agreed that the cops acted correctly.... The guy there was committing suicide by cop...... He was wrong... Flat out..... And.....this has what to do with cops busting down an unarmed guys door to his home with family and kids around, getting tazzed while he is holding a camera... I missed something here.
One case I agree with the cops actions the other I don't.... What is the point?
EXACTLY. You're beating a dead horse arguing over semantics. Until the LE's entered the home, it was not known if there was a gun, other weapon, potential body[s] etc. Are there some LE's who take it to the extreme, YES. Are there people who know little if anything at all [first hand] how LE's respond to calls, YES. Rolling up on a scene with nothing outside the call leaves you to think on your feet. There are no cookie cutter responses for every call.
HOWEVER you have gone beyond making your point and now sound like NYNCO defending his voting [broken] record. Move on, or start your own LE bashing thread.
AM TOO, ARE NOT, AM TOO
OneGuy67
05-16-2013, 17:42
As explained to me, any form of perceived intimidation falls under the definition of Domestic Violence. If your partner wants to leave the room and you stand in the doorway to block their exit, it can apply. If your partner attempts to remove them-self from an argument by locking a door and you open it, it can apply. If your partner picks up a phone to make a call and you hang it up, it can apply. If you break anything belonging to your partner in anger, it can apply. If you make any statement to your partner that can be "perceived" as a threat, it can apply. If you put your fist through a wall when your wife admits to having an affair, it most certainly does apply - got me a PRO.
Ugh. Once again, let's talk statute. If you are arrested, you needed to have violated a statute, not a list, not a compiling of thoughts or beliefs.
1). If your partner wants to leave the room and you stand in the doorway to block their exit, it can apply. C.R.S. 18-3-303 False Imprisonment may apply.
2). If your partner attempts to remove them-self from an argument by locking a door and you open it, it can apply. I can't find an appropriate statute to apply to this, which is why I asked you for one.
3). If your partner picks up a phone to make a call and you hang it up, it can apply. C.R.S. 18-9-309 Telecommunications Crime may apply. Some jurisdictions charge 18-9-302 Wiretapping, which could be charged as a felony.
4). If you break anything belonging to your partner in anger, it can apply. C.R.S. 18-4-501 Criminal Mischief will apply.
5). If you make any statement to your partner that can be "perceived" as a threat, it can apply. C.R.S. 18-9-111 Harassment may apply, depending upon the specificity of the statements.
6). If you put your fist through a wall when your wife admits to having an affair, it most certainly does apply. C.R.S. 18-4-501 Criminal Mischief may apply; however, there is the Patrick Waugh defense on this part. If one is to destroy their own property, it isn't considered an act of DV under this statute. It might be charged under a different statute. And let me say, I have personal knowledge to this defense.
It doesn't take much to get a Temporary Restraining Order, nor does it take much more to get a Permanent Restraining Order, especially if the served person doesn't fight it.
So, you can see that it is a VIOLATION of statute that applies, not a violation of a list found using Google. When the officer arrests you, it is because he/she has probable cause to believe you have violated a state statute and they will need to articulate that violation in the probable cause statement.
OneGuy67,
Understood.
I should not have used the terms "DV crime," or "committed DV."
I was never arrested or charged with any crime, just got hammered with a PPO (previously mis-stated PRO) because she "was afraid of me."
And, while on the subject, gun owners should know that you cannot possess firearms with a Protective Order against you. If you get a Permanent Protective Order against you, it means for life. The protected party can remove it at will, but you must wait 4 years before being allowed to have another hearing. If you lose that hearing, 4 more years. It ain't no joke, and divorce attorney's seem to push for it.
Again, be careful who you trust. It does not take much to get yourself in a bind for a long time. If you do find yourself facing a possible Protective Order, get the best damn attorney you can afford.
OneGuy67
05-16-2013, 18:11
OneGuy67,
Understood.
I should not have used the terms "DV crime," or "committed DV."
I was never arrested or charged with any crime, just got hammered with a PPO (previously mis-stated PRO) because she "was afraid of me."
And, while on the subject, gun owners should know that you cannot possess firearms with a Protective Order against you. If you get a Permanent Protective Order against you, it means for life. The protected party can remove it at will, but you must wait 4 years before being allowed to have another hearing. If you lose that hearing, 4 more years. It ain't no joke, and divorce attorney's seem to push for it.
Again, be careful who you trust. It does not take much to get yourself in a bind for a long time. If you do find yourself facing a possible Protective Order, get the best damn attorney you can afford.
Peace brother.
You are correct that Protection Orders will have a detriment effect on your ability to possess firearms, that can be obtained at the drop of a hat. There isn't a judge in this country that wants to be the first judge to deny a TPO and the victim gets killed. So, all TPO's will be given with an additional hearing at a later point in order to have the Restrained Party have the ability to make an argument against it.
Absolutely not. It is a complete fabrication. And I can't imagine where that rumor ever came from. Thanks to the internet though, the lie lives on.
I've actually heard it a lot from most people, actually about everyone I've ever talked with about a DV case. This is literally the first time I've heard that it was false. I've always wondered because of my particular case. Now I know.
You've gone full retard, dude. Never go full retard.
^ This was friggen funny.
Anybody else notice how liberally Bailey throws around "Stupid"? If you don't agree with him or the cops point of view....
In Bailey's America, only cops know the secret sauce. The rest of us are stupid for even asking.
Did you ever think that maybe he's trying to calmly tell you how it is in the real world, how things actually work, and not the happy magical land everyone would love their arguments to work in? You can fight all day long about how you wish it were, or hope it would be, but Bailey is arguing about how it is. This is really reminding me of arguing with liberals (how things are, vs how they wish things were).
Yeah, and I explained the difference between ignorant and stupid. That probably went over your head, too. You've really stayed in this, I'm surprised. Now, I really really want someone to take a camcorder, and test this theory out. Seriously, have your friend call in a DV on you and your wife, and try your theory out. This should be another nice youtube video..... As your smart ass is getting it handed to you, I want you to call out "this is for you spyder!"
Boadie30
05-16-2013, 18:53
Funny Story Now...If your wife throws a fuckin hairbrush at you and you say what the fuck is your problem (Intimidation), wife denies the hairbrush... add alcohol on my part (really that was the end of the story).. End of report... and the neihbor hears the hair brush hitting the wall (apartment)...Your fucked.... and another period.
Bottom line, marry carefully and if you drink avoid, hide from everyone if they at the time don't care for you... and thank god I was in the military... We are still married 18 years later... Single incident.. I still love the snot.
Now, I really really want someone to take a camcorder, and test this theory out. Seriously, have your friend call in a DV on you and your wife, and try your theory out. This should be another nice youtube video..... As your smart ass is getting it handed to you, I want you to call out "this is for you spyder!"
Now, that there is priceless.[ROFL2]
Easy to tell who are the cops on here, they really believe it's their world.
OneGuy67
05-16-2013, 19:46
Maybe this forum isn't for you Hound.
Easy to tell who are the cops on here, they really believe it's their world.
And on that note, I am out, Gave it a hell of a shot to make it clear.
Brother's, Good luck.
Bailey Guns
05-16-2013, 20:45
I admit it. I made a tactical error in attempting a rational discussion with Hound. I should've taken Carlin's advice:
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
Wow nineteen pages. I thought everyone was gonna give up on page 2.
Great-Kazoo
05-16-2013, 21:28
Wow nineteen pages. I thought everyone was gonna give up on page 2.
key words. Just wait until one of the liberal's post something informative and or political, That thread will b a 200+ replies easy
Easy to tell who are the cops on here, they really believe it's their world.
It is our world; You are just living in it [Coffee]
Great-Kazoo
05-16-2013, 22:04
It is our world; You are just living in it [Coffee]
ATTICA........ ATTICA
WOOSH WAY over a lot of heads
Bailey Guns
05-16-2013, 22:26
WOOSH WAY over a lot of heads
A lot of that goes on around here.
I appreciate the efforts and time taken by the LEOs in this thread for once, as there was a lot of useful information. Not everyone who benefits from your posts is actively conversing with you. I wish You guys would give up less and talk like this more. There are probably more readers on here than posters.
Easy to tell who are the cops on here, they really believe it's their world.
You just don't get it.
I am not a cop, and I agree with them.
It's a shame that you haven't learned that you can be right, or happy, but apparently not both at the same time.
DingleBerns
05-16-2013, 23:10
19 pages and nothing has changed, [/thread].
19 pages and nothing has changed, [/thread].
You guys may not have changed the opinion of ONE poster, but what about The other thousand viewers?
DingleBerns
05-16-2013, 23:20
You guys may not have changed the opinion of ONE poster, but what about The other thousand viewers?
Hopefully they are more intelligent and understand the variables needed for said behavior.
Hopefully they are more intelligent and understand the variables needed for said behavior.
Out of all of the previous posts on this thread, yours had the most honor. Thanks for giving me some faith in how cops would respond if anybody on this forum were in the same position of having cops knocking on their door.
It was nice to see a back and forth with Davsel, Dave, and OneGuy- very informative... I'm gonna say I'll approach each situation individually and not worry about the hypothetical and "what if" situations, I'm gonna say Bailey et al. are correct and now, to the microwave!
[Pop]
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.