Commiefornia Police Kick in Door and Taze Person Filming Them

[Bailey Guns]

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.

[Hound]

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]

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.

[Ronin13]

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]

DenverLEO gave you the answer. Apparently you don't like it.

[Hound]

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]

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]

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.

[Hound]

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]

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.