Commiefornia Police Kick in Door and Taze Person Filming Them

[DingleBerns]

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.

[LippCJ7]

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.

[Ronin13]

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]

Bailey that's a violation of Mr. Hounds 4th amendment because there was no exigent circumstances.

[Bailey Guns]

Bailey that's a violation of Mr. Hounds 4th amendment because there was no exigent circumstances.

I went to all that trouble to fabricate obvious exigent circumstances and you just ruined it. Thanks, pal!

[DingleBerns]

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]

I went to all that trouble to fabricate obvious exigent circumstances and you just ruined it. Thanks, pal!

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.)

[TheGrey]

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.

[Ronin13]

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."

[Hound]

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.