Commiefornia Police Kick in Door and Taze Person Filming Them

[OneGuy67]

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]

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"

[Kraven251]

http://www.legalzoom.com/everyday-la...ce-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]

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]

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]

Rahim Moore...Touche!

hahaa

[RblDiver]

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]

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?

[Hound]

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]

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."