Commiefornia Police Kick in Door and Taze Person Filming Them

[Cylinder Head]

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.

[spyder]

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]

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]

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]

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...

[Irving]

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]

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.

[cstone]

The cops may be wrong.

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]

Serve and Protect I hope there is more to this story. I do know a lot of LEO do not like being filmed

[cstone]

Serve and Protect 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?