Another police/rights video

[jimnyc]

I saw this video posted within a mess of a thread in the lounge. I think it's better with it's own thread. I'll say straight off, I have no issue with their actions. "IF" I hear right in the beginning, it sounds like they are out there on a possible domestic violence call. The couple in question could have easily walked out their front door, spoke to the police, and put it to rest. OR, they could whip out a camera and videotape, and refuse to cooperate. If they are called in on a domestic, they aren't going to assume that every party is OK just because someone on the other side of the glass says so, their job is to make sure.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PaGAy5XEv-o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[revelarts]

I saw this video posted within a mess of a thread in the lounge. I think it's better with it's own thread. I'll say straight off, I have no issue with their actions. "IF" I hear right in the beginning, it sounds like they are out there on a possible domestic violence call. The couple in question could have easily walked out their front door, spoke to the police, and put it to rest. OR, they could whip out a camera and videotape, and refuse to cooperate. If they are called in on a domestic, they aren't going to assume that every party is OK just because someone on the other side of the glass says so, their job is to make sure.

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PaGAy5XEv-o" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

Jim
i'm think i'm really done debating this kinda stuff.
I don't see how you can say they they are there to protect... the woman(?) when they walk in and TAZE HER.
is that protection?
did they miss the guy or something.
if you and justify this there's nothing to say.
"whipping out a camera" OMG they whipped out a camera!
Were they protecting the GUY?


preemptive policing, shoot 1st ask questions later.

enjoy your police folks.

[jimnyc]

Jim
i'm think i'm really done debating this kinda stuff.
I don't see how you can say they they are there to protect... the woman(?) when they walk in and TAZE HER.
is that protection?
did they miss the guy or something.
if you and justify this there's nothing to say.
"whipping out a camera" OMG they whipped out a camera!
Were they protecting the GUY?


preemptive policing, shoot 1st ask questions later.

enjoy your police folks.

Someone called in a domestic issue. They HAVE to ensure the safety of all parties before they can leave, or they're supposed to. These people stood at the window instead of cooperating. I understand they "claim" there was no issue, but simply walking out front and SPEAKING to them likely would have resolved the issue. Their very own actions made the situation worse than it needed to be. I know they told people to get down and stand back and all that crap, but these people refused to. I can't say if a taser was necessary as I can only see what the police were doing, not the wife or husband. But when they were out front, while keeping their hands near their guns, they seemed to be acting routine and only wanting to ensure all was cool. The officer even calmly asked why they wouldn't come out the door, and you heard the other one explain they were there on a domestic call. I know you think they should take the word of total strangers, but when a cop is called to an emergency situation, they don't know what is going on. For all they know these people were being uncooperative because they had a gun. Who knows. But the police DO have the right to ensure the safety of a home where a domestic violence situation could be going on. I don't think taking the word of someone through the window is the way to go, only to find out later that someone was killed because the police weren't thorough on the job. I believe Abbey pointed out elsewhere - in Cleveland, the police were called to the house where the 3 girls were kidnapped. They didn't check the situation out fully, obviously. These girls endured several more years of abuse and rape. Was it a result of the police not being thorough? I don't know that either, but I DO know that had they looked into it further WITH a search, a lot of abuse could have been avoided. Instead, they took the word of the abuser.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Jim
i'm think i'm really done debating this kinda stuff.
I don't see how you can say they they are there to protect... the woman(?) when they walk in and TAZE HER.
is that protection?
did they miss the guy or something.
if you and justify this there's nothing to say.
"whipping out a camera" OMG they whipped out a camera!
Were they protecting the GUY?


preemptive policing, shoot 1st ask questions later.

enjoy your police folks.

of course you are. You've already made up your mind that there is no need for police, no possible reason they have for entering ANY home, welcome or not... why bother with looking for facts or supporting evidence, right Fuck debate, right?

dumb ass.

[jimnyc]

Another example. It appears in this instance, a neighbor called the police. What if an alarm system calls? What if my alarm goes off, and then the police show up, and I open my front door but not the storm door. I explain to them that it went off accidentally, but I have since spoken to ADT and verified who I was and that all was fine in the house. Should it be left there and the police leave?

It happened to me, they kept the guns drawn, about 5 or 6 of them, and demanded I come out and show them ID. 2 of them went around the back. They came in after I showed them ID and did a quick search to ensure all was OK. Of course they didn't taze me in that instance, but I also cooperated with them, especially knowing they were "called" there and were just doing their jobs.

[revelarts]

Someone called in a domestic issue. They HAVE to ensure the safety of all parties before they can leave, or they're supposed to. These people stood at the window instead of cooperating. I understand they "claim" there was no issue, but simply walking out front and SPEAKING to them likely would have resolved the issue. Their very own actions made the situation worse than it needed to be. I know they told people to get down and stand back and all that crap, but these people refused to. I can't say if a taser was necessary as I can only see what the police were doing, not the wife or husband. But when they were out front, while keeping their hands near their guns, they seemed to be acting routine and only wanting to ensure all was cool. The officer even calmly asked why they wouldn't come out the door, and you heard the other one explain they were there on a domestic call. I know you think they should take the word of total strangers, but when a cop is called to an emergency situation, they don't know what is going on. For all they know these people were being uncooperative because they had a gun. Who knows. But the police DO have the right to ensure the safety of a home where a domestic violence situation could be going on. I don't think taking the word of someone through the window is the way to go, only to find out later that someone was killed because the police weren't thorough on the job. I believe Abbey pointed out elsewhere - in Cleveland, the police were called to the house where the 3 girls were kidnapped. They didn't check the situation out fully, obviously. These girls endured several more years of abuse and rape. Was it a result of the police not being thorough? I don't know that either, but I DO know that had they looked into it further WITH a search, a lot of abuse could have been avoided. Instead, they took the word of the abuser.

IF all, IF!
all your assuptions are true .
2 cops could have stayed 1 in front and 1 at the back door.
while another went to get a warrant.
problem solved.

But the police can't be be inconvenienced with the LAW.

[revelarts]

of course you are. You've already made up your mind that there is no need for police, no possible reason they have for entering ANY home, welcome or not... why bother with looking for facts or supporting evidence, right Fuck debate, right?

dumb ass.

expecting and the police to follow the constitution and the laws = no police in you mind Marcus.
no problem.
people are stupid for thinking the Constitution means a D2mn thing. Just obey the police and everything is perfect.
enjoy folks.

[Missileman]

Another example. It appears in this instance, a neighbor called the police. What if an alarm system calls? What if my alarm goes off, and then the police show up, and I open my front door but not the storm door. I explain to them that it went off accidentally, but I have since spoken to ADT and verified who I was and that all was fine in the house. Should it be left there and the police leave?

It happened to me, they kept the guns drawn, about 5 or 6 of them, and demanded I come out and show them ID. 2 of them went around the back. They came in after I showed them ID and did a quick search to ensure all was OK. Of course they didn't taze me in that instance, but I also cooperated with them, especially knowing they were "called" there and were just doing their jobs.

And what is in place to prevent cops from using "we got a call there was a domestic dispute" to perform warrantless searches of any and every house they want? IMO, when cops arrived, if there wasn't any evidence of a domestic dispute having occurred or in progress, and after talking with the residents who told them there's nothing wrong, they should have left. Hell, the cops could place the 911 call themselves if they wanted to target a particular house.

[jimnyc]

IF all, IF!
all your assuptions are true .
2 cops could have stayed 1 in front and 1 at the back door.
while another went to get a warrant.
problem solved.

But the police can't be be inconvenienced with the LAW.

You're assuming a law was broken. I think refusing to cooperate on a domestic call, they didn't come uninvited, their failure to cooperate can EASILY be argued as failure to obey AND obstruction. But hey, let's not let the LAW get in the way.

I hate to break it to you, but by law, there ARE instances in which a citizen must obey orders, they cannot obstruct police from doing their jobs AND not every entry requires a warrant, ESPECIALLY when the call is violence related and someone can be injured.

[Marcus Aurelius]

If the police left without any investigation, and one person kills or injures the other... all Hell would break loose and people would be screaming that the police didn't do their jobs.

[jimnyc]

And what is in place to prevent cops from using "we got a call there was a domestic dispute" to perform warrantless searches of any and every house they want? IMO, when cops arrived, if there wasn't any evidence of a domestic dispute having occurred or in progress, and after talking with the residents who told them there's nothing wrong, they should have left. Hell, the cops could place the 911 call themselves if they wanted to target a particular house.

If the call was fictional, the occupants need only file a complaint lawsuit. They keep records of every 9/11 call and transmission back to the officers via their radios.

But by your logic, we shouldn't even let cops in if they respond to a shooting, or someone saw a murder take place in the window - as the occupant need only tell them nothing is wrong, no?

[jimnyc]

If the police left without any investigation, and one person kills or injures the other... all Hell would break loose and people would be screaming that the police didn't do their jobs.

And it's happened - Cleveland....

The police are CONTINUALLY criticized for failure to uncover incidents and similar, not taking their jobs seriously and allowing a rapist or murderer to rape or murder again. If they pulled up, knocked, the guy said "all is fine", and they left - and then they discover the next day that he killed his wife minutes later - they would be remiss in their duties for not ensuring the safety of ALL occupants as they are trained.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=638978#post638978)
of course you are. You've already made up your mind that there is no need for police, no possible reason they have for entering ANY home, welcome or not... why bother with looking for facts or supporting evidence, right Fuck debate, right?

dumb ass.




expecting and the police to follow the constitution and the laws = no police in you mind Marcus.
no problem.
people are stupid for thinking the Constitution means a D2mn thing. Just obey the police and everything is perfect.
enjoy folks.

Did I stutter? No, you're just not very bright I guess.

The police had probable cause to enter. Said cause being the complaint called in.

How do you survive, hating 'the man' so much?

[Marcus Aurelius]

And it's happened - Cleveland....

The police are CONTINUALLY criticized for failure to uncover incidents and similar, not taking their jobs seriously and allowing a rapist or murderer to rape or murder again. If they pulled up, knocked, the guy said "all is fine", and they left - and then they discover the next day that he killed his wife minutes later - they would be remiss in their duties for not ensuring the safety of ALL occupants as they are trained.

Rev was the same whiney ass about the Boston lockdown and house to house. God forbid the bomber was behind a door, with a gun to someones head forcing them to say 'all is well', and the cops leave it at that.

[revelarts]

You're assuming a law was broken. I think refusing to cooperate on a domestic call, they didn't come uninvited, their failure to cooperate can EASILY be argued as failure to obey AND obstruction. But hey, let's not let the LAW get in the way.
I hate to break it to you, but by law, there ARE instances in which a citizen must obey orders, they cannot obstruct police from doing their jobs AND not every entry requires a warrant, ESPECIALLY when the call is violence related and someone can be injured.with reason , But the police are not our bosses they have to obey the law as well as we and there NO need to assume they have all the authority they claim in EVERY instances jim.


If the police left without any investigation, and one person kills or injures the other... all Hell would break loose and people would be screaming that the police didn't do their jobs.

if they have reason to believe there is that much trouble a foot,

g e t -a- w a r r a n t


what's wrong with that Jim , Marcus?

[Missileman]

If the call was fictional, the occupants need only file a complaint lawsuit. They keep records of every 9/11 call and transmission back to the officers via their radios.

But by your logic, we shouldn't even let cops in if they respond to a shooting, or someone saw a murder take place in the window - as the occupant need only tell them nothing is wrong, no?

I think you missed the point about cops making their own 911 calls and warrants are easy to come by, I see no reason not to let judges earn their paychecks by issuing them.

[Marcus Aurelius]

It must be sad to always be so angry at the police, or anyone else for that matter. There are FAR more examples of police abiding by the letter and spirit of the law, following proper procedure, and doing a good job day in and day out, than there EVER will be of police crossing the line. Yes, it happens. NO, it is not the norm or even the majority.

Live with your infantile anger. And have a cookie.

[jimnyc]

with reason , But the police are not our bosses they have to obey the law as well as we and there NO need to assume they have all the authority they claim in EVERY instances jim.



if they have reason to believe there is that much trouble a foot,

g e t -a- w a r r a n t


what's wrong with that Jim , Marcus?

First off, they don't need one in instances like this, and secondly, being of a violent nature, someone could very well be killed if they don't act.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I think you missed the point about cops making their own 911 calls and warrants are easy to come by, I see no reason not to let judges earn their paychecks by issuing them.

Fake 911 calls... warrants are easy to come by.... ALL COPS ARE EVIL is what you're really saying.

sad.

[Marcus Aurelius]

with reason , But the police are not our bosses they have to obey the law as well as we and there NO need to assume they have all the authority they claim in EVERY instances jim.



if they have reason to believe there is that much trouble a foot,

g e t -a- w a r r a n t


what's wrong with that Jim , Marcus?

a 911 call comes in... and you want a warrant issued on each and every one before any police action, regardless of the immediacy of the situation?

You're certifiable.

[jimnyc]

I think you missed the point about cops making their own 911 calls and warrants are easy to come by, I see no reason not to let judges earn their paychecks by issuing them.

So we shouldn't trust the police for basically ANY call they investigate, as they can ALWAYS be making stuff up, faking calls, planting stuff... In almost every instance I can think of a plausible reason as to how the cops can do wrong - so we should ban all entries, and make it 100% illegal for them to EVER enter without a warrant. For as many complainers get their way then, just as many will get abused or killed for the police not being able to do their jobs.

[revelarts]

Did I stutter? No, you're just not very bright I guess.
The police had probable cause to enter. Said cause being the complaint called in.
How do you survive, hating 'the man' so much?

complaint called in by who Marcus? a prank kid, a jilted lover, a pissy neighbor? or a real concerned person WHO'S NOT IN THE HOUSE EITHER.

there's no way to know.

if the police get there and are still not sure.
Get a warrant.
is that hating the man?

[taft2012]

2 cops could have stayed 1 in front and 1 at the back door.
while another went to get a warrant.
problem solved.

But the police can't be be inconvenienced with the LAW.

First of all, as explained in other threads and deliberately ignored, the police do not need a warrant in this emergency situation.

Secondly, tying up 4 cops for one job while Lord knows how many other calls back up, and other emergencies have to wait in a queue, for the whole warrant process to go through? Finding a judge, filling out paperwork, etc. Do you think every city has an army of police on standby?

Finally, what is this love affair you liberals have with the judiciary? I know you like to run to them and get your little pet criminal rights passed there when the legislatures tell you to go take a hike. But still.

Do you think a judge has some kind of magic insight that makes his warrant so valuable and infallible? Does the judge have a better understanding of what's happening than the police at the scene?

What if a judge denied said warrant and it turned out someone got killed as a result?

On that basis alone a judge wouldn't ever deny a warrant for a situation like this, so what's the point of even wrangling about it in a discussion?

Absurdity.

[jimnyc]

Fake 911 calls... warrants are easy to come by.... ALL COPS ARE EVIL is what you're really saying.

sad.

They should just ban police altogether then. If we're going to prevent them from doing their jobs in every instance where it's possible that they can skirt the law. How many people busted for drugs claim it was planted? I think we should reverse every single on of those charges as we just don't know if its for real or not.

[revelarts]

a 911 call comes in... and you want a warrant issued on each and every one before any police action, regardless of the immediacy of the situation?

You're certifiable.

If ther is NO REASON to think there is a problem, after you get to scence what do want them to do lock every one up just because they got a call or just shot them all on the spot. let God sort them Out

Marcus your the one talking out of emotions and not thinking.

Cops standing by a quiet home while another gets warrant is not Crazy. and you know it.

[jimnyc]

If ther is NO REASON to think there is a problem, after you get to scence what do want them to do lock every one up just because they got a call or just sot them all on the spot. let God sort them Out

Marcus your the one talking out of emotions and not thinking.

Cops standing by a quiet home while another gets warrant is not Crazy. and you know it.

And in places like Chicago, LA and NYC - they will all be sitting around with their thumbs up their asses waiting on warrants instead of doing their jobs. Most of the DV stuff happens at night. So we just let the victim perhaps continue to get beaten, while the cops sit in their cars waiting on someone to get a hold of a sleeping judge?

[taft2012]

If ther is NO REASON to think there is a problem, after you get to scence what do want them to do lock every one up just because they got a call or just sot them all on the spot. let God sort them Out


Yeah, that's what's being said. "If a 911 call is made to your house the police should show up and either shoot you or arrest you."
:rolleyes:

Do you know what "probable cause" even is?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=638995#post638995) Did I stutter? No, you're just not very bright I guess.
The police had probable cause to enter. Said cause being the complaint called in.
How do you survive, hating 'the man' so much?


complaint called in by who Marcus? a prank kid, a jilted lover, a pissy neighbor? or a real concerned person WHO'S NOT IN THE HOUSE EITHER.

there's no way to know.

if the police get there and are still not sure.
Get a warrant.
is that hating the man?

You just lost the argument for yourself.


there's no way to know.

Time is a factor. that appears to be something you are simply intellectually unable to process.

I sincerely hope that the police are NEVER called to your home, told everything is alright, and then someone you care about is injured or killed because the police didn't act, or act fast enough. You'd be the first one to sue.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=639008#post639008)
a 911 call comes in... and you want a warrant issued on each and every one before any police action, regardless of the immediacy of the situation?

You're certifiable.




If ther is NO REASON to think there is a problem, after you get to scence what do want them to do lock every one up just because they got a call or just sot them all on the spot. let God sort them Out

Marcus your the one talking out of emotions and not thinking.

Cops standing by a quiet home while another gets warrant is not Crazy. and you know it.

Of the two of use, I think 95% of the posters on this board would agree I am the more logical of the two.

[taft2012]

What Taft2012 would have done:

"Oh hello officers, what's wrong? There was a domestic violence call here? That's odd. No, nothing's wrong, everyone's fine. You're required to make sure everything is OK? That's fine, come on in. Honey, kids, could you all come here for a moment and say hello to the officers."

The problem is that Rev is a kook like the guy in the video, and these dumbasses make work unnecessarily harder than it is.

Why?

[revelarts]

ooo kkkk.

enjoy your police, no matter What they do. its right and good and proper. Im sure.
They never need warrants, ever It's liberal and crazy to think so. and means you hate the man.

We have to obey them always and with respect because, well just because they won't like it and I'm sure there some law that says the lowly civilians have to. Show our papers on demand. and obey the police, obey the police, obey the police no matter what and it will be fine. They are trying to protect me or somebody, maybe i'm a threat and a don't even know it.
And if suspects don't talk a little torture never hurt anybody. it's not really torture anyway. and what if something happened if they didn't, then what?

phew booy, yeah right, I see what your saying.

Look, God Bless you all, it's very sad what my country men have come too.

[taft2012]

Cops standing by a quiet home while another gets warrant is not Crazy. and you know it.

Yeah, it is crazy, since he doesn't need a warrant. Even your beloved activist liberal courts haven't gotten that crazy. Yet.

It's as crazy as walking 50 miles buy a new spare tire when the one in your trunk is perfectly fine.

[taft2012]

ooo kkkk.

enjoy your police, no matter What they do. it right and good and proper.

Yeah, we said that. :rolleyes:


They never need warrants, ever It's liberal and crazy to think so. and means you hate the man.

Yeah, we said that. :rolleyes:

Need I go on?

[Missileman]

So we shouldn't trust the police for basically ANY call they investigate, as they can ALWAYS be making stuff up, faking calls, planting stuff... In almost every instance I can think of a plausible reason as to how the cops can do wrong - so we should ban all entries, and make it 100% illegal for them to EVER enter without a warrant. For as many complainers get their way then, just as many will get abused or killed for the police not being able to do their jobs.

If the cops get to the house and someone's covered in blood or bruises...you know, EVIDENCE, that certainly meets probable cause. A phone call from who knows who is not probable cause. If the cops arrive and there is no EVIDENCE to proceed, they should be required to get a warrant if they want to enter the house. That's not unreasonable.

[Missileman]

First of all, as explained in other threads and deliberately ignored, the police do not need a warrant in this emergency situation.


What emergency? The husband and wife both presented themselves at the front door.

[taft2012]

If the cops get to the house and someone's covered in blood or bruises...you know, EVIDENCE, that certainly meets probable cause. A phone call from who knows who is not probable cause. If the cops arrive and there is no EVIDENCE to proceed, they should be required to get a warrant if they want to enter the house. That's not unreasonable.

Another one who doesn't know what the hell "probable cause" is...

Or what the case law is on these matters.

Nor is remotely interested in learning.

Why bother?

[BillyBob]

Someone called in a domestic issue. They HAVE to ensure the safety of all parties before they can leave, or they're supposed to.

Legislating tyranny doesn't make it any less tyrannical.

[revelarts]

It must be sad to always be so angry at the police, or anyone else for that matter. .....
Logic?

Live with your infantile anger. And have a cookie.
...... ALL COPS ARE EVIL is what you're really saying.
sad.
more Logic?

a 911 call comes in... and you want a warrant issued on each and every one before any police action,
regardless of the immediacy of the situation? Logic? -never said that, can you read?-
You're certifiable. more Logic?

Time is a factor. that appears to be something you are simply intellectually unable to process.
more Logic?
-you can't seem to understand ZERO evidence of a crime-

I sincerely hope that the police are NEVER called to your home,...You'd be the first one to sue.
more Logic? based on --nada--

of course you are. You've already made up your mind that there is no need for police, no possible reason they have for entering ANY home, welcome or not... why bother with looking for facts or supporting evidence, right Fuck debate, right?
dumb ass.
more Logic or insults and made up BS

Did I stutter? No, you're just not very bright I guess.
more Logic?

The police had probable cause to enter. Said cause being the complaint called in.
more Logic? probable cause is just call no evidence at the scence ZERO?
How do you survive, hating 'the man' so much?
more Logic ? if that is example of logic you ARE more logically.
Don iicles was very Logical too i guess


Look Marcus I've Never called you stupid, your a very sharp guy, and it's not my style.
but name callin aint logic my friend

[Gaffer]

Getting a warrant is not like walking back to the car and picking one up. There's a lot involved with a lot of paper work. If the people refuse to come out, or let the officers in, the officers are required to take action in order to insure everyones safety. All it takes, according to case law, is for the officers to have probable cause to suspect something is wrong and they can take action.

Don't like it Rev? Get the laws changed. Should be no problem. There must be 6 whole people in the country that think like you.

Your always quick to jump on the accusation band wagon for things you know nothing about. But the real conspiracies and law breaking gets passed over.

[aboutime]

Look Marcus I've Never called you stupid, your a very sharp guy, and it's not my style.
but name callin aint logic my friend


rev. Just because you are convinced that patronizing others, and using rhetoric will disguise your claims about using name calling in any way...doesn't convince someone, or anyone you target with your Obama-like, self impressed dribble.

[BillyBob]

Getting a warrant is not like walking back to the car and picking one up. There's a lot involved with a lot of paper work. If the people refuse to come out, or let the officers in, the officers are required to take action in order to insure everyones safety. All it takes, according to case law, is for the officers to have probable cause to suspect something is wrong and they can take action.

Don't like it Rev? Get the laws changed. Should be no problem. There must be 6 whole people in the country that think like you.

Your always quick to jump on the accusation band wagon for things you know nothing about. But the real conspiracies and law breaking gets passed over.


'Probable cause' is just an excuse for tyranny. The cops could have waited outside while a proper warrant was procured. And they don't have to use force when they finally serve that warrant. They just do that shit because they like it. I'm sure the Gestapo got a similar thrill when they kicked down doors.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/stop-search.jpg

[jimnyc]

ooo kkkk.

enjoy your police, no matter What they do. its right and good and proper. Im sure.
They never need warrants, ever It's liberal and crazy to think so. and means you hate the man.

We have to obey them always and with respect because, well just because they won't like it and I'm sure there some law that says the lowly civilians have to. Show our papers on demand. and obey the police, obey the police, obey the police no matter what and it will be fine. They are trying to protect me or somebody, maybe i'm a threat and a don't even know it.
And if suspects don't talk a little torture never hurt anybody. it's not really torture anyway. and what if something happened if they didn't, then what?

phew booy, yeah right, I see what your saying.

Look, God Bless you all, it's very sad what my country men have come too.

Rev - WHY would I, or anyone else, reply in a serious or respectful manner - when time and time and time again - you do like you did above, which is CONTINUALLY putting words into the mouths of others? Why can't you just debate fairly instead of making up things others never stated?

[Gaffer]

'Probable cause' is just an excuse for tyranny. The cops could have waited outside while a proper warrant was procured. And they don't have to use force when they finally serve that warrant. They just do that shit because they like it. I'm sure the Gestapo got a similar thrill when they kicked down doors.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/stop-search.jpg

The cops would wait outside while some found a judge and presented the evidence and probable cause, then described the house and surrounding area and names of the people in the house. All of that has to be included in the warrant. The warrant then has to be hand delivered back to the officers at the door. It's a very time consuming process that takes hours.

The officers are not looking to search the house, they want to talk to the people there, who are refusing to cooperate. You don't need a warrant to talk to someone. Nothing gestapo about it. Now if it were the IRS you might have point.

[jimnyc]

If the cops get to the house and someone's covered in blood or bruises...you know, EVIDENCE, that certainly meets probable cause. A phone call from who knows who is not probable cause. If the cops arrive and there is no EVIDENCE to proceed, they should be required to get a warrant if they want to enter the house. That's not unreasonable.

I'm sorry you disagree with the way the law works, but rarely will the police have evidence tossed into their faces. At times they actually need to do their jobs and investigate calls that come in, and actually take the ones seriously where it is stated that someone is in danger.

Someone refusing to simply answer the door or step out to talk to police, this gives the police caution, as to WHY won't they cooperate. If the person refuses to cooperate with the police, on a DV call, it's not unreasonable for the police to take it seriously and ensure everyone is OK anyway. Not every household has windows, many, many people live in apartments. So if a husband beats his wife, someone hears and calls the police, when they arrive - so long as no blood is on the door and the hubby yells from behind the door that all is ok, they should just leave?

[jimnyc]

What emergency? The husband and wife both presented themselves at the front door.

How do the police even know who lives there, let alone who is husband and wife?

[aboutime]

I'm sorry you disagree with the way the law works, but rarely will the police have evidence tossed into their faces. At times they actually need to do their jobs and investigate calls that come in, and actually take the ones seriously where it is stated that someone is in danger.

Someone refusing to simply answer the door or step out to talk to police, this gives the police caution, as to WHY won't they cooperate. If the person refuses to cooperate with the police, on a DV call, it's not unreasonable for the police to take it seriously and ensure everyone is OK anyway. Not every household has windows, many, many people live in apartments. So if a husband beats his wife, someone hears and calls the police, when they arrive - so long as no blood is on the door and the hubby yells from behind the door that all is ok, they should just leave?



jimnyc: Seems pretty obvious. After reading this thread. How so many members just plain "HATE COPS", and have little, if any respect for the Rule of Law. Unless they control every situation.

[jimnyc]

Legislating tyranny doesn't make it any less tyrannical.

Sure, now the police doing their job, and ensuring the well being in a DV situation, now relates to tyranny? LOL

[jimnyc]

Look Marcus I've Never called you stupid, your a very sharp guy, and it's not my style.
but name callin aint logic my friend

I mean this respectfully, Rev, but placing words in the mouths of others, over and over and over again, isn't a ton better.

[aboutime]

Sure, now the police doing their job, and ensuring the well being in a DV situation, now relates to tyranny? LOL


Those who have declared their hatred, and disrespect for the Police are normally...always the very first, and loudest to cry 'Tyrant'. And most of us know. That cry usually takes place when they have broken a law...and been caught.

[BillyBob]

The cops would wait outside while some found a judge and presented the evidence and probable cause, then described the house and surrounding area and names of the people in the house. All of that has to be included in the warrant. The warrant then has to be hand delivered back to the officers at the door. It's a very time consuming process that takes hours.

Cops get paid by the hour.



The officers are not looking to search the house, they want to talk to the people there, who are refusing to cooperate. You don't need a warrant to talk to someone.

I heard a lot of talking in the video.



Nothing gestapo about it.

Yeah, I don't think the Gestapo had tazers.

[BillyBob]

Sure, now the police doing their job, and ensuring the well being in a DV situation, now relates to tyranny? LOL

Calling tyranny a 'job' doesn't make it any less tyrannical.

[BillyBob]

Those who have declared their hatred, and disrespect for the Police are normally...always the very first, and loudest to cry 'Tyrant'. And most of us know. That cry usually takes place when they have broken a law...and been caught.


I'm amazed at how many of you so called 'conservatives' are willing to bow down to your tyrannical masters without a fight. We need a new definition for that word.

Conservative = Obedient Pussy

[jimnyc]

jimnyc: Seems pretty obvious. After reading this thread. How so many members just plain "HATE COPS", and have little, if any respect for the Rule of Law. Unless they control every situation.

Quite frankly, I couldn't care less if they hate or even respect the police. But knowing the law is an entire different story. The law doesn't simply change because someone disagrees with it. They can bellyache about "tyranny" and other garbage for the next million years, and it won't matter. The courts have already ruled on things like this, and other reasons for warrantless entry in cases such as this. I can give my opinion supporting it, and others are more than welcome to argue why they disagree with it. But at the end of the day, the law supports my version, and those disagreeing, well, like Gaffer said, they are free to see the law changed.

[jimnyc]

I'm amazed at how many of you so called 'conservatives' are willing to bow down to your tyrannical masters without a fight. We need a new definition for that word.

Conservative = Obedient Pussy

Please chill with the filth name calling.

[jimnyc]

Calling tyranny a 'job' doesn't make it any less tyrannical.

I know, and I'll bet you were a Ron Paul supporter too. Anything from the government or police is tyrannical by nature. :rolleyes:

[BillyBob]

Quite frankly, I couldn't care less if they hate or even respect the police. But knowing the law is an entire different story. The law doesn't simply change because someone disagrees with it. They can bellyache about "tyranny" and other garbage for the next million years, and it won't matter. The courts have already ruled on things like this, and other reasons for warrantless entry in cases such as this. I can give my opinion supporting it, and others are more than welcome to argue why they disagree with it. But at the end of the day, the law supports my version, and those disagreeing, well, like Gaffer said, they are free to see the law changed.


The English courts had already ruled against the Founding Fathers and deemed them traitors. Fortunately, it didn't take a million years of 'bellyaching' about tyranny before the FF made some changes. I guess they could have simply said, 'Hey, it's the law. King George is a tyrant but wutaya gonna do?'

[BillyBob]

I know, and I'll bet you were a Ron Paul supporter too. Anything from the government or police is tyrannical by nature. :rolleyes:


Deflection. Conjecture. Misdirection. Obfuscation. Off topic.

[tailfins]

Did I stutter? No, you're just not very bright I guess.

The police had probable cause to enter. Said cause being the complaint called in.

How do you survive, hating 'the man' so much?

I bet you stutter more than Mel Tillis.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRhTW0oZTWA

[jimnyc]

Deflection. Conjecture. Misdirection. Obfuscation. Off topic.

Sure, as I figured. :lol:

[Gaffer]

I'm amazed at how many of you so called 'conservatives' are willing to bow down to your tyrannical masters without a fight. We need a new definition for that word.

Conservative = Obedient Pussy

I was in the military. Army and Air Force. I'm a combat veteran. I was also a deputy sheriff. I'm a major conservative and an atheist. I don't trust the federal govt any farther than I can throw them. But I also know that most cops are conservatives and community oriented. They deal with state and local laws. The bad cops are a real minority.

I see you as talking out your ass about things you know nothing about. Rev does it all the time. You see one event without all the facts and make rash hateful decisions. You might want to try stepping back and looking at things from a different angle sometime.

I'm a former cop. Do you hate me?

[Missileman]

I'm sorry you disagree with the way the law works, but rarely will the police have evidence tossed into their faces. At times they actually need to do their jobs and investigate calls that come in, and actually take the ones seriously where it is stated that someone is in danger.

Someone refusing to simply answer the door or step out to talk to police, this gives the police caution, as to WHY won't they cooperate. If the person refuses to cooperate with the police, on a DV call, it's not unreasonable for the police to take it seriously and ensure everyone is OK anyway. Not every household has windows, many, many people live in apartments. So if a husband beats his wife, someone hears and calls the police, when they arrive - so long as no blood is on the door and the hubby yells from behind the door that all is ok, they should just leave?

That wasn't the case in the video in the OP. The cops could see husband and wife through the glass door. And after posting this:


Rev - WHY would I, or anyone else, reply in a serious or respectful manner - when time and time and time again - you do like you did above, which is CONTINUALLY putting words into the mouths of others? Why can't you just debate fairly instead of making up things others never stated?

why would you write the bolded part?

[BillyBob]

Sure, as I figured. :lol:


This is what qualifies as an intellectual retort around here? And you're a Mod?

Oh boy.......

[jimnyc]

That wasn't the case in the video in the OP. The cops could see husband and wife through the glass door. And after posting this:



why would you write the bolded part?

I never claimed you wrote any of that, I simply asked a question. Surely you can see that, as opposed to outright making quotes that the other never stated? I simply asked a question based on what you wrote, never implied you said such.

As to your first part - do you then think there should be different laws pertaining to entry on a DV case, depending on whether or not the house/apartment has windows?

[jimnyc]

This is what qualifies as an intellectual retort around here? And you're a Mod?

Oh boy.......

I am asking you to reel it back a tad with your attitude. You're not going to be here for 2 days and start critiquing staff. Either participate like an adult and understand many others post here, including women and sometimes younger lads. And no, I'm not a moderator, I own the place.

[BillyBob]

I was in the military. Army and Air Force. I'm a combat veteran.

Thank you for your service.



I was also a deputy sheriff.

Yeah, a lot of former servicemen become cops. I get that.



I'm a major conservative

I'm a general conservative, does that mean I outrank you?



and an atheist.

So?



I don't trust the federal govt any farther than I can throw them.

Me either.




But I also know that most cops are conservatives and community oriented. They deal with state and local laws. The bad cops are a real minority.

Maybe. But there sure seems to be a lot of bad ones.





I see you as talking out your ass about things you know nothing about.

Oh, I know tyranny when I see it. Calling it 'police work' doesn't make it any less tyrannical.



Rev does it all the time.

What does he have to do with any of this?




You see one event without all the facts and make rash hateful decisions.

No I didn't.



You might want to try stepping back and looking at things from a different angle sometime.

I was gonna suggest the same to you.




I'm a former cop. Do you hate me?

Are you hitting on me? You're the second one tonight! Geez, I had no idea this was a gay pick-up joint. But now that I think about it, there aren't any women here.

Uh ohhh....

[BillyBob]

I am asking you to reel it back a tad with your attitude. You're not going to be here for 2 days and start critiquing staff. Either participate like an adult and understand many others post here, including women and sometimes younger lads. And no, I'm not a moderator, I own the place.


I see. So it's OK for you to make false accusations about me and when I call you on it, I'm the offender. Got it.

[jimnyc]

I see. So it's OK for you to make false accusations about me and when I call you on it, I'm the offender. Got it.

Saying "sure, as I figured" is hardly an accusation. And I was speaking of you and the P word, and continuing it when I asked you to cease. This isn't a pornographic board, and AGAIN, we have ladies posting here.

[Gaffer]

That wasn't the case in the video in the OP. The cops could see husband and wife through the glass door. And after posting this:



why would you write the bolded part?

In a domestic call the officers need to talk to each individual separately. One could be intimidating the other. That's why two officers always respond to such calls. They interview each and then switch, see if stories change. They can't walk away without interviewing all involved. This is policy in all departments because in the past bad things happened after they left. Department policy is the driving force behind everything the cops do. In Cincinnati they have a policy that if you roll on a domestic violence call someone is going to jail.

Not following policy will get you in a shit load of trouble.

[BillyBob]

Saying "sure, as I figured" is hardly an accusation.

No, you labeled me a Ron Paul supporter, I responded that your post was a deflection and you responded 'Sure, as I figured'. Go back and look. I guess being the forum owner you are can derail threads at your choosing when you are losing the argument then infracting the person you just lost to out of spite and embarrassment. But that hardly makes for an inviting forum.




And I was speaking of you and the P word, and continuing it when I asked you to cease.

That's not true at all. I simply clarified my intention when I chose that word. I NEVER posted it again.



This isn't a pornographic board, and AGAIN, we have ladies posting here.

I'm not interested in posting pornography, not my thing.

[jimnyc]

No, you labeled me a Ron Paul supporter, I responded that your post was a deflection and you responded 'Sure, as I figured'. Go back and look. I guess being the forum owner you are can derail threads at your choosing when you are losing the argument then infracting the person you just lost to out of spite and embarrassment. But that hardly makes for an inviting forum.

I suggest you read the rules...

Anyway, you're off base. I'm asking you to reel back your attitude you have had since you came here. You're free not to, that's your choice. I also asked you to cease with the P word, and you didn't, you tried to argue for it. I made it clear, we are not an adult board, and we aren't going to have it here.

/end of discussion.

If you have an issue with the way the board is ran, take it to PM. If you take issue with me, feel free to take it to one of the other admins - DMP or Abbey.

[Missileman]

I never claimed you wrote any of that, I simply asked a question. Surely you can see that, as opposed to outright making quotes that the other never stated? I simply asked a question based on what you wrote, never implied you said such.

As to your first part - do you then think there should be different laws pertaining to entry on a DV case, depending on whether or not the house/apartment has windows?

My problem with how the police behaved in the OP video was based on the fact that they COULD/DID see husband and wife. What more was to be gained from entering?

[jimnyc]

My problem with how the police behaved in the OP video was based on the fact that they COULD/DID see husband and wife. What more was to be gained from entering?

Honestly, I'm not a cop, so I can't say what a DV checklist fully entails. But for all we know, or the police knew, the people at the window were the husband, friend and sister - and the wife was locked away in another room. Far fetched? Perhaps, but I've seen much, much worse. I know you say could and DID, but unless the police were personal with these people, they are not sure until they get to the bottom of everything, and ensure the safety of all.

[Missileman]

In Cincinnati they have a policy that if you roll on a domestic violence call someone is going to jail.

Not following policy will get you in a shit load of trouble.

And if it were a prank call to get the cops there? Someone gets jailed for no reason?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Look Marcus I've Never called you stupid, your a very sharp guy, and it's not my style.
but name callin aint logic my friend

I can't help your stupidity. You'll need a specialist for that.

[Missileman]

Honestly, I'm not a cop, so I can't say what a DV checklist fully entails. But for all we know, or the police knew, the people at the window were the husband, friend and sister - and the wife was locked away in another room. Far fetched? Perhaps, but I've seen much, much worse. I know you say could and DID, but unless the police were personal with these people, they are not sure until they get to the bottom of everything, and ensure the safety of all.

I see...then the absence of any noise coming from YOUR house must mean you have a girl tied up and gagged in a sound-proofed room. What's your address...I'll get a SWAT team right over there...to ensure safety and such.

[jimnyc]

And if it were a prank call to get the cops there? Someone gets jailed for no reason?

If it were a prank, and the people cooperated, there would be no issue. They wouldn't get jailed based on a call alone. People call the cops on others all the time out of spite. Mostly neighbor disputes. The police will knw what is up once they investigate. People also call DYFS and other family services on people with children. But unless there is something to it, nothing will come out of it. And while I acknowledge that nitwits like this exist that call the authorities, they can't avoid calls and/or protocol as a result. Look out in Cali where all the "swatting" is going on to the celebrities.

[jimnyc]

I see...then the absence of any noise coming from YOUR house must mean you have a girl tied up and gagged in a sound-proofed room. What's your address...I'll get a SWAT team right over there...to ensure safety and such.

That's exactly the point. Absence of noise or not, it COULD be anything from someone bound and gagged, to a couple in no need of assistance on the other side of a window. But the police don't know any of this for sure, until they investigate on the scene and make sure all is cool. They need to make this determination. It's as simple as getting ID and finding out who lives there and getting a version from both parties. The police weren't there to perform a search or violate their rights. These people could very well have come outside and simply showed ID and explained that they live there and that there is no problem. The bottom line is this though - it is their JOB to ensure the safety of the parties involved. They can't even determine who may have been involved without cooperation from the home owners. They cannot take a 911 call and make assumptions.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.markwynn.com/civil-liability/aele-monthly-law-journal-civil-liability-and-dv-calls-part-3.pdf



In Moore v. Green, No. 100029, 2006 Ill. Lexis 613, 848 N.E.2d 1015, a prior decision in the same state, the Illinois Supreme Court rules that police officers who allegedly failed to assist domestic violence victim in response to 911 call were not entitled to absolute immunity under state law on a claim that their inaction was willful and wanton conduct that caused her death when her husband subsequently shot her. More specific limited immunity provision of domestic violence statute applied instead, with an exception for willful and wanton conduct. The officers allegedly failed to adequately investigate the call, leaving the scene of the disturbance only minutes before the husband killed the wife.
Rev and Missile should tell the family of the murdered woman that the police acted properly, and it's just too fucking bad the woman let herself be killed.





Doe v. Calumet City , #75347, 161 Ill 2d 374, 641 N.E.2d 498 (1994), finding that an allegation that officer declined to break into apartment to rescue minor girl from intruder who was raping her, despite her mother's pleas to do so, because he did not want to be liable for property damage stated claim against officer for willful and wanton negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and gender discrimination...
How dare the girl being raped expect the officer to save her. After all, he acted properly in not damaging her mother’s property, so what else did she want, right Rev? Missle?

[Missileman]

That's exactly the point. Absence of noise or not, it COULD be anything from someone bound and gagged, to a couple in no need of assistance on the other side of a window. But the police don't know any of this for sure, until they investigate on the scene and make sure all is cool. They need to make this determination. It's as simple as getting ID and finding out who lives there and getting a version from both parties. The police weren't there to perform a search or violate their rights. These people could very well have come outside and simply showed ID and explained that they live there and that there is no problem. The bottom line is this though - it is their JOB to ensure the safety of the parties involved. They can't even determine who may have been involved without cooperation from the home owners. They cannot take a 911 call and make assumptions.

The point is rather that there could be someone in danger in every house in the US, call or no call. They shouldn't be able to search a house based on a phone call any more than they should be able to walk aroung the city and choose houses at random for a "safety" search.

[jimnyc]

The point is rather that there could be someone in danger in every house in the US, call or no call. They shouldn't be able to search a house based on a phone call any more than they should be able to walk aroung the city and choose houses at random for a "safety" search.

They weren't there to search the house. They were free to come out and speak with the officers, or have them come in. They only forced entry when they failed to cooperate. In no way was this a search of a house.

[Missileman]

http://www.markwynn.com/civil-liability/aele-monthly-law-journal-civil-liability-and-dv-calls-part-3.pdf

Rev and Missile should tell the family of the murdered woman that the police acted properly, and it's just too fucking bad the woman let herself be killed.




How dare the girl being raped expect the officer to save her. After all, he acted properly in not damaging her mother’s property, so what else did she want, right Rev? Missle?

Strawman arguments are put forth by assholes...asshole!

[Missileman]

They weren't there to search the house. They were free to come out and speak with the officers, or have them come in. They only forced entry when they failed to cooperate. In no way was this a search of a house.

What about the wife tied up in the back room you said they needed to make sure wasn't there? Can't discern that from the porch!

[jimnyc]

What about the wife tied up in the back room you said they needed to make sure wasn't there? Can't discern that from the porch!

No need for that scenario if the homeowners cooperate and appropriately supply ID and explain that there is no issue. If the parties are identified on porch and explain why a neighbor may have heard wrong, the entire thing ends where it began on the porch.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=639109#post639109)

http://www.markwynn.com/civil-liabil...lls-part-3.pdf (http://www.markwynn.com/civil-liability/aele-monthly-law-journal-civil-liability-and-dv-calls-part-3.pdf)

Rev and Missile should tell the family of the murdered woman that the police acted properly, and it's just too fucking bad the woman let herself be killed.




How dare the girl being raped expect the officer to save her. After all, he acted properly in not damaging her mother’s property, so what else did she want, right Rev? Missle?



Strawman arguments are put forth by assholes...asshole!

strawman my left nut, dipshit. I posted examples of what happens when the police do what you and Rev want... NOTHING.

Live with your epic FAIL.

[Gaffer]

What about the wife tied up in the back room you said they needed to make sure wasn't there? Can't discern that from the porch!

That's why they check ID's and they will ask if they can go in and look around. They can't search the house just look where someone might be hid or hiding. It's a policy to insure everyones safety. Giving the cops a hard time about it just raises suspicions.

If it was me, I would have arrested them both then got a search warrant and gone through the house with a fine tooth comb. Just because they must have something to hide.

[Missileman]

strawman my left nut, dipshit. I posted examples of what happens when the police do what you and rev want... Nothing.
Live with your epic fail.

that"s the strawman, asshole! I never said "do nothing".

[Missileman]

No need for that scenario if the homeowners cooperate and appropriately supply ID and explain that there is no issue. If the parties are identified on porch and explain why a neighbor may have heard wrong, the entire thing ends where it began on the porch.

I see...everything will be okay as long as you don't object to your rights being stomped on.

Here's the deal. Let's for the sake of argument, say that the cops have a judge with them on a ride-along. The cops get a call through 911 where someone claims they hear a ruckus going on next door and believe there's a husband/wife fight going on. The police arrive, and just like in the OP video, they observe the couple through their door and they both appear uninjured and both state there's nothing wrong. The cop goes to the judge and presents those facts to him. Do you honestly believe a judge would issue a search warrant for that house given those facts? I don't...or at least I certainly HOPE not.

[jimnyc]

I see...everything will be okay as long as you don't object to your rights being stomped on.

Which one is stomping on their rights - asking for ID? Asking them to come out and discuss it with them?

[Missileman]

Which one is stomping on their rights - asking for ID? Asking them to come out and discuss it with them?

Firstly, there is no requirement to show an ID if you're in your home. Secondly, the door between them was not preventing a discussion, so staying in the house was not obstructing them.

You didn't answer the second part...do you believe a judge would have issued a warrant to those cops under the circumstances?

[Kathianne]

Both sides have good points. The Cleveland situation happened, the police just 'didn't see' a reason to go further, they are criticized.

On the other hand, swatting has been used time and again, it's only a matter of time before some innocent is killed. It began as attacks on conservatives and now has switched to celebrities:

http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/23/4253014/swatting-911-prank-wont-stop-hackers-celebrities


Meet 'swatting,' the dangerous prank that could get someone killed It's shockingly easy, but penalties are harsh

<script type="text/javascript"> Event.observe(window,'load',function(){ if (SBN.Streams == undefined){ SBN.Streams = {}; } SBN.Streams.inPlaceEditing = { streamTitle: 'Meet \'swatting,\' the dangerous prank that could get someone killed', streamSummary: 'It\'s shockingly easy, but penalties are harsh' }; }); </script> By Adrianne Jeffries (http://www.theverge.com/users/adrianne) on <time class="updated" datetime="2013-04-23 14:00:06+0000" pubdate="">April 23, 2013 10:00 am

</time>On March 14th, online security journalist Brian Krebs was cleaning his Virginia home in preparation for a small dinner party when he noticed some plastic tape stuck under his front door, left over from when he’d had to secure an extension cord. Pulling up the tape, he opened the front door — and suddenly heard a yell (http://krebsonsecurity.com/2013/03/the-world-has-no-room-for-cowards/). "Don’t move!" the voice said. "Put your hands in the air!" There were around 10 to 12 police officers surrounding his driveway, guns drawn.


Fortunately, Krebs realized immediately what had happened. He had actually warned the police months before about the possibility of a fake emergency call designed to bring a SWAT team to his house, an increasingly popular prank among the young hackers he writes about. Still, he was shaken.

<time class="updated" datetime="2013-04-23 14:00:06+0000" pubdate="">
</time>"Any time people who are trained to respond to hostile situations show up at your door pointing automatic weapons at you, things can go wrong very easily," Krebs told The Verge. "I'm a pretty cool customer, as these things go, but when they said ‘put your hands up,’ I had a big huge ball of tape in my hands. What if somebody mistook that for a weapon?"
<!-- extended entry --> Heavily armored special police units were a common sight in the Boston metro area last week during the hunt for the bombers who attacked the Boston Marathon. But special forces had been seeing more action than usual, across the country and before the bombings, thanks to an old prank known as "swatting" that’s recently come back into style...



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/08/gop-lawmakers-conservative-bloggers-swatting_n_1580844.html


GOP Lawmakers Urge Justice Department To Investigate Alleged Harassment Of Bloggers The Huffington Post | By Nick Wing (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicholas-wing) <script data-readbyplayerseed="true" type="text/javascript"> (function($){ huff.js('jquery/jquery.tooltip.hp.js', function(){ $('.fb-tooltip').show(); $('.twitter-tooltip').show(); $('.social-icons-border').hide(); $('.posted-and-updated').css('display', 'block') $('.fb-tooltip').toolTip({ toolTipWidth : 250, html : 'Get updates from Nick Wing\n \n \n \n \n Like (http://www.debatepolicy.com/"javascript:void(0);\")\n
\n
\n <s></s>
\n 157
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

' }); }); }(jQuery)); </script> Posted: 06/08/2012 11:49 am

...


“I am very afraid of the potential chilling effects that these reported actions may have in silencing individuals who would otherwise be inclined to exercise their Constitutional right to free speech,” Marchant wrote, according to Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/08/capitol-hill-gop-lawmakers-ask-holder-to-probe-harassment-conservative-bloggers/).


Marchant's letter comes on the heels of a similar one from Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), who wrote Holder (http://www.chambliss.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=9f27a0be-cc7d-43e7-bbd8-6b794f5ba0fd) asking him to launch a probe into the supposed occurences of swatting.


Swatting is a scamming method that involves a caller using voice-over-IP technology to manipulate the tracking information of their location, tricking an emergency service into believing that the call is being placed from elsewhere.


Erick Erickson, editor of the conservative site RedState.com (http://redstate.com/), was an apparent target of swatting last month, when cops were sent to his Macon, Ga. home to respond to a call claiming that he'd shot his wife.


“My first thought was, ‘What have the kids done?’” Erickson said, according to ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/senator-asks-doj-to-investigate-swat-ting-attacks-on-conservative-bloggers/), seeing a squad car outside his house. “The police officer approached me in the driveway and said it was a call about an accidental shooting. According to the 911 call, the person claimed I had killed my wife.”


Just days before, Erickson had written about another alleged case of swatting involving Patrick Frey, another conservative blogger and deputy District Attorney in Los Angeles.


During that 2011 episode, a swarm of law enforcement officers appeared at his residence to respond to a call, apparently from Frey's house, reporting that he'd killed his wife. He hadn't, and the call hadn't actually come from within his home.


Conservative bloggers have identified a suspect, ABC News reports (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/senator-asks-doj-to-investigate-swat-ting-attacks-on-conservative-bloggers/):



Several conservative bloggers have been vocal about who they believe is responsible for the SWAT-tings and other forms of harassment -- Brett Kimberlin, a man who was convicted of a series of bombings in Speedway, Indiana in the 1980s and made headlines in 1988 when he claimed to have once sold marijuana to then-vice presidential candidate Dan Quayle. The group of conservative bloggers organized “Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day” on May 25, during which they urged the blogging community to write about the actions of Kimberlin.


Kimberlin has denied having anything to do with the incidents.


“I had never even heard of Erick Erickson until a couple of days ago,” he told Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/08/capitol-hill-gop-lawmakers-ask-holder-to-probe-harassment-conservative-bloggers/). “I have nothing to do with the swatting of anybody.”

...

[Marcus Aurelius]

this is how they do it in Kentucky...
http://chfs.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/54B7AF71-5428-4EC6-AE69-158BBFBF8031/0/ModelDomesticViolenceLawEnforcementPolicy.htm

B. On-Scene Investigation, Arrest and Post Arrest Procedures
1. General Responsibilities at the Scene [see attached checklist]
When responding to domestic violence calls, officers should:
http://chfs.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/54B7AF71-5428-4EC6-AE69-158BBFBF8031/0/..%5CModel%20Domestic%20Violence%20Law%20Enforceme nt%20Policy_files%5Cwb02252_.gifrespond promptly to the call - utilize two officers when available;
http://chfs.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/54B7AF71-5428-4EC6-AE69-158BBFBF8031/0/..%5CModel%20Domestic%20Violence%20Law%20Enforceme nt%20Policy_files%5Cwb02252_.gifestablish control;
http://chfs.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/54B7AF71-5428-4EC6-AE69-158BBFBF8031/0/..%5CModel%20Domestic%20Violence%20Law%20Enforceme nt%20Policy_files%5Cwb02252_.gifassess the situation for risks to all parties including children;
http://chfs.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/54B7AF71-5428-4EC6-AE69-158BBFBF8031/0/..%5CModel%20Domestic%20Violence%20Law%20Enforceme nt%20Policy_files%5Cwb02252_.gifattend to the emergency medical needs of those involved;
http://chfs.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/54B7AF71-5428-4EC6-AE69-158BBFBF8031/0/..%5CModel%20Domestic%20Violence%20Law%20Enforceme nt%20Policy_files%5Cwb02252_.gifinterview parties/witnesses separately and away from the line of sight and hearing of the perpetrator; (use direct quotes of witnesses about their fears and concern);
http://chfs.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/54B7AF71-5428-4EC6-AE69-158BBFBF8031/0/..%5CModel%20Domestic%20Violence%20Law%20Enforceme nt%20Policy_files%5Cwb02252_.gifeffect an arrest of the perpetrator as the preferred response, if legally possible;
http://chfs.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/54B7AF71-5428-4EC6-AE69-158BBFBF8031/0/..%5CModel%20Domestic%20Violence%20Law%20Enforceme nt%20Policy_files%5Cwb02252_.gifseize any weapons used in the incident;
http://chfs.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/54B7AF71-5428-4EC6-AE69-158BBFBF8031/0/..%5CModel%20Domestic%20Violence%20Law%20Enforceme nt%20Policy_files%5Cwb02252_.gifinform the victim of rights;
http://chfs.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/54B7AF71-5428-4EC6-AE69-158BBFBF8031/0/..%5CModel%20Domestic%20Violence%20Law%20Enforceme nt%20Policy_files%5Cwb02252_.gifprovide victim information on legal remedies and community services available for protection and safety planning;
http://chfs.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/54B7AF71-5428-4EC6-AE69-158BBFBF8031/0/..%5CModel%20Domestic%20Violence%20Law%20Enforceme nt%20Policy_files%5Cwb02252_.gifassist the victim in securing medical attention which shall include arranging for the transporting of the victim to obtain medical attention;
http://chfs.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/54B7AF71-5428-4EC6-AE69-158BBFBF8031/0/..%5CModel%20Domestic%20Violence%20Law%20Enforceme nt%20Policy_files%5Cwb02252_.gifassist the victim in securing legal protection (warrant, protective order) which may include transporting the victim to obtain the legal protection, if appropriate;
http://chfs.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/54B7AF71-5428-4EC6-AE69-158BBFBF8031/0/..%5CModel%20Domestic%20Violence%20Law%20Enforceme nt%20Policy_files%5Cwb02252_.gifreport all actual and suspected incidents of abuse to the Cabinet for Families and Children, Department for Social Services, using the "Child Abuse, Adult Abuse, and Domestic Abuse Standard Report" form (JC-3);
http://chfs.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/54B7AF71-5428-4EC6-AE69-158BBFBF8031/0/..%5CModel%20Domestic%20Violence%20Law%20Enforceme nt%20Policy_files%5Cwb02252_.gifif the exigent circumstances have ceased, obtain a consent to search or obtain a search warrant when appropriate;
http://chfs.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/54B7AF71-5428-4EC6-AE69-158BBFBF8031/0/..%5CModel%20Domestic%20Violence%20Law%20Enforceme nt%20Policy_files%5Cwb02252_.gifcollect and photograph all relevant evidence required for successful prosecution [use body map with checklist to document injuries];
http://chfs.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/54B7AF71-5428-4EC6-AE69-158BBFBF8031/0/..%5CModel%20Domestic%20Violence%20Law%20Enforceme nt%20Policy_files%5Cwb02252_.gifarrange for follow up photographs of the victim in order to demonstrate the extent of the injuries that may later become more obvious;
http://chfs.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/54B7AF71-5428-4EC6-AE69-158BBFBF8031/0/..%5CModel%20Domestic%20Violence%20Law%20Enforceme nt%20Policy_files%5Cwb02252_.gifattend to any children or dependent adults;
http://chfs.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/54B7AF71-5428-4EC6-AE69-158BBFBF8031/0/..%5CModel%20Domestic%20Violence%20Law%20Enforceme nt%20Policy_files%5Cwb02252_.gifcheck LINK and NCIC for outstanding warrants, history file on protective orders and whether there are any active "EPO's", "DVO's" or Foreign Protective Orders ["FPO's"]. [For various reasons not all valid domestic violence orders may be in the LINK system].



Missile and Rev would have them stop at the 1st item on the checklist.

[Marcus Aurelius]

this is how they do it in North Dakota...


http://www.ag.state.nd.us/bci/NDModel2012DomesticViolencePolicy.pdf

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="&#45;-"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> INITIAL RESPONSE AND INVESTIGATION
A.
Officer Safety / Arrival at the Scene
– NOTE: Officer safety should guide all responses to domestic violence calls.
1. Obtain all available information from the dispatcher before or upon arrival at scene.
2. Approaching the scene:
a.
Whenever possible, a minimum of two law enforcement officers should respond to a domestic call.
b.
Avoid the use of sirens and other su ch alarms, when allowed by law and policy and when safe arrival is still possible, in the vicinity of the scene. (The
assailant may turn a weapon upon law enforcement, or flee the scene, if alerted.)
c.
Observe the location of the dispute before contacting the complainant. Consider the surroundings. If possible, approach and park in a manner not to
be seen.
d. Before knocking on the door, listen a nd look in any nearby window(s) to obtain additional information about the situation (layout of the house, number of people involved, weapons, etc). Law enforcement must be concerned for their own safety. To minimize the possibility of injury, law enforcement should stand to the side of the door when knocking. The unexpected may occur when the door opens.
B.
On Scene Response
1.
Identify selves as law enforcement, give an explanation of law enforcement presence, and request entry into the home. Ascertain
identity of complainant – ask to see complainant.
a.
If entry is refused, law enforcement must explain that they need to make sure there are no injured persons inside.
b.
Refusal of entry or no response to a knock at the door may require a forced entrance to check safety of people inside. Law Enforcement may also make a warrantless entry to conduct a search if emergency /exigent circumstances exist. Law Enforcement must have a reasonable belief that such an emergency does exist (i.e. if law enforcement believes that someone is in distress and in need of assistance).

Exigent circumstances are defined as:
(1) Lives are threatened;
(2) Property and/or evidence is
about to be destroyed; or
(3) Suspect’s escape is imminent.
c.Law enforcement may conduct a search of the premises if consent has been given to do so. Although a consent search eliminates a need for a warrant and for probable cause, such consent must be freely and voluntarily given. If two people have joint ownership or possession of a place or thing, either one may give a valid consent.
(1)
A spouse can consent to the search of premises used jointly by both husband and wife. This is also true if man and woman are only
cohabitants. If one of them exercises sole control over part of the premises, the other cannot give valid consent to search that part.
2. Once entry is secured, law enforcement shall:
a.If possible, physically separate parties involved in domestic violence to prevent any further immediate contact be
tween the parties. [Note: This includes removing the victim from the suspect’s line of sight. If it is necessary to remove one party from insi
de the residence to the outside area, and officer safety permits, the suspect should be removed outside and the victim allowed to remain inside in a protected environment.]
b. Restore order by gaining control of the situation.
c. Take control of all weapons used or threatened to be used in the crime.
NOTE: For the safety of both parties, if it is not required in a protection order, an officer still may suggest the respondent surrender weapons to law enforcement for a temporary period of time.
d.Assess the need for medical attention and call for medical assistance if indicated.
(1) If a party appears minimally injured and yet refuses medical assistance, carefully document any observed injuries as well as the refusal of medical treatment.
(2)If a party appears severely injured, medical personnel shall be called with or without the consent of the party.
·Attempt to obtain a medical records release signed by the victim/suspect at the scene, when possible.
·If possible, send waiver signed by victim/suspect to medical facility as soon as possible
and obtain copy of records for report including doctor’s name and phone number.
e.Document all parties present at the scene.
f.Interview all parties i.e. victim, suspect, children, and/or any witnesses
separately and away from the line of sight and hearing of the suspect; Use direct quotes of victims and witnesses about their fears and concerng.
Assess and document the condition of the incident scene. What does it look like? (i.e. holes in wall, broken items, chairs tipped over, etc.) [Note:Photograph and/or videotape scene and document in report.]
h.Record/document any excited utterances
i.Collect and photograph all relevant evidence required for successful prosecution [Note: Use Appendix D or E to document any injuries.]
j.
Determine if a crime has occurred.
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true" DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style> <![endif]-->

[jimnyc]

I see...everything will be okay as long as you don't object to your rights being stomped on.

Here's the deal. Let's for the sake of argument, say that the cops have a judge with them on a ride-along. The cops get a call through 911 where someone claims they hear a ruckus going on next door and believe there's a husband/wife fight going on. The police arrive, and just like in the OP video, they observe the couple through their door and they both appear uninjured and both state there's nothing wrong. The cop goes to the judge and presents those facts to him. Do you honestly believe a judge would issue a search warrant for that house given those facts? I don't...or at least I certainly HOPE not.

The judge will ask who the occupants of the home are and who was involved in the ruckus. He will be told that the people inside are filming and not cooperating and they cannot tell who is who for sure. He will be told that a domestic violence call is in place and they cannot tell for sure if someone is in danger or not. Based on the 911 DV call and the combative people in the window, warrant granted on the spot to ensure the safety of all and ID those involved.

[jimnyc]

Firstly, there is no requirement to show an ID if you're in your home. Secondly, the door between them was not preventing a discussion, so staying in the house was not obstructing them.

They need to literally verify who the homeowners are and verify the safety of all. Sorry, but that's their job, and they do it all the time. Marcus's links show that this type of thing is standard procedure for officers in the field. Like Gaffer said earlier to Rev, if this type of procedure is so bad to you guys, you would need to fight to have it changed. As for now, this line says it all. And like it says, they need to make sure that no one is injured inside, especially when you have people that seem like they are hiding something.

Refusal of entry or no response to a knock at the door may require a forced entrance to check safety of people inside. Law Enforcement may also make a warrantless entry to conduct a search if emergency /exigent circumstances exist. Law Enforcement must have a reasonable belief that such an emergency does exist (i.e. if law enforcement believes that someone is in distress and in need of assistance).

[taft2012]

Finally, what is this love affair you liberals have with the judiciary? I know you like to run to them and get your little pet criminal rights passed there when the legislatures tell you to go take a hike. But still.

Do you think a judge has some kind of magic insight that makes his warrant so valuable and infallible? Does the judge have a better understanding of what's happening than the police at the scene?
.

This is a part of the discussion I wish was discussed more.

During the far left's outrage about warrantless wiretaps of Al Qaeda, they somehow thought that one man signing a piece of paper, a warrant, was the panacea to everything. That man; a lawyer working for the government.

Logically, that combination of lawyer-government would normally have libertarians sputtering in outrage. However, for some reason they hold them out as the means to their ends, as angels send by Ayn Rand from heaven.

So if a judge refused to sign a particular Al Qaeda wiretap warrant and an act of terrorism results, who would the left blame? An anonymous judge? Not likely.

If a judge refused to sign a warrant for a domestic violence case and someone died as a result, who would the left blame? Another anonymous judge? Not likely.

These are obstacles thrown up by leftists to disable the most legitimate functions of government, local and national security. The part of government liberals hate most.

Meanwhile, the Department of Agriculture, of the Department of Energy, they can freely trespass onto farms and cite farmers, or onto oil fields and cite oilmen, for all kinds of infractions. Liberals and libertarians really don't care. In those cases, the screams for warrants do not exist.

It's only when the government gets a little too close for comfort to that half ounce of marijuana they have hidden in the bottom of a coffee can that they start to screech.

[jimnyc]

Let's assume they change how things operate, and make a way to get warrants on a computer within seconds/minutes. They get fluent at the procedure. They then make the same entry based on the exact same info provided here. If a judge approves so, the argument will then be against him. I have zero doubt in my mind that this would be the case. And if it's showed that it's been through Congress and various courts, then those people will be frowned upon. Even if it made its way to the SC, and they backed the entries, then that court would be criticized.

[taft2012]

They need to literally verify who the homeowners are and verify the safety of all. Sorry, but that's their job, and they do it all the time. Marcus's links show that this type of thing is standard procedure for officers in the field. Like Gaffer said earlier to Rev, if this type of procedure is so bad to you guys, you would need to fight to have it changed. As for now, this line says it all. And like it says, they need to make sure that no one is injured inside, especially when you have people that seem like they are hiding something.

Refusal of entry or no response to a knock at the door may require a forced entrance to check safety of people inside. Law Enforcement may also make a warrantless entry to conduct a search if emergency /exigent circumstances exist. Law Enforcement must have a reasonable belief that such an emergency does exist (i.e. if law enforcement believes that someone is in distress and in need of assistance).



I didn't read through every regulation that Marcus posted, so I don't know if they covered this already:

Domestic Violence is not limited to husband vs. wife. All of the children living in the home have to be accounted for as well, to ensure they are not being abused, neglected, or maltreated. Police are taught to casually scan around for food supplies, pop open the refrigerator door, to get an idea of how well the children are being fed and cared for. If there are five children in the house and only a six pack of Coors in the refrigerator...... it's pretty easy to figure out that this situation needs to be closely examined. Especially if the children look dirty and malnourished.

Child abuse/neglect is part of Domestic Violence.

Also, there may be extended family members residing in the household; in-laws, cousins, etc. They are also covered under Domestic Violence statutes.

So, Missileman's "The husband and the wife were right there" crap doesn't wash.

[taft2012]

Let's assume they change how things operate, and make a way to get warrants on a computer within seconds/minutes. They get fluent at the procedure. They then make the same entry based on the exact same info provided here. If a judge approves so, the argument will then be against him. I have zero doubt in my mind that this would be the case. And if it's showed that it's been through Congress and various courts, then those people will be frowned upon. Even if it made its way to the SC, and they backed the entries, then that court would be criticized.


Heh, you have more faith in the liberal media than I do, Jimmy.

The judiciary is the goose that laid the leftists' golden eggs. They're never going to question them.

For instance, if the FBI had gone to court to get a wiretap warrant for the Tsarnaev brothers are were denied that warrant, who do you think would ulitmately get the blame?

"Oh, the FBI didn't present its case to the judge properly"
"Oh, the FBI should have maintained better surveillance."
"Oh, the FBI should have lined up its ducks in a row better."

You're never going to see; "Unfortunately the judge presented with the warrant application was too liberal.":laugh:

[jimnyc]

I didn't read through every regulation that Marcus posted, so I don't know if they covered this already:

Domestic Violence is not limited to husband vs. wife. All of the children living in the home have to be accounted for as well, to ensure they are not being abused, neglected, or maltreated. Police are taught to casually scan around for food supplies, pop open the refrigerator door, to get an idea of how well the children are being fed and cared for. If there are five children in the house and only a six pack of Coors in the refrigerator...... it's pretty easy to figure out that this situation needs to be closely examined. Especially if the children look dirty and malnourished.

Child abuse/neglect is part of Domestic Violence.

Also, there may be extended family members residing in the household; in-laws, cousins, etc. They are also covered under Domestic Violence statutes.

So, Missileman's "The husband and the wife were right there" crap doesn't wash.

Police are secondary, as are the kids. So long as the occupant is visible through a window, and declares that all is kosher, and the police don't have a warrant - that's where the call/investigation ends. Not placing words in mouths, it just seems that is what I am getting out of this.

But lets face it, people lie, especially when the PO PO show up, and they hear every excuse known to man. This is why they stick to procedure and simply ensure the safety of the occupants and get to the bottom of the call, even if the occupants are against the questioning/investigation.

[jimnyc]

Also from Cali:

SANTA ANA — Police officers may enter a home without a search warrant when they suspect someone may be in danger of domestic violence even if that person says everything is all right, a state appeals court ruled in a Newport Beach case.

The 4th District Court of Appeal, in a 3-0 ruling issued Tuesday, upheld their subsequent drug convictions, saying the apparent domestic violence emergency authorized police to enter without a search warrant.
Past rulings, from California and elsewhere, recognize that "probable cause of ongoing spousal abuse at a residence warrants immediate police intervention," the court said.

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-06-30/local/me-10385_1_domestic-violence-cases

[jimnyc]

In NJ:

3. Police Must Enter to Confront Domestic Violence. In accordance with New Jersey law, police are authorized to make a warrantless entry in order to locate and protect victims of domestic violence.

http://www.newjerseycriminallawattorney.com/CM/Custom/Search-House-Apartment.asp

[taft2012]

The 4th District Court of Appeal, in a 3-0 ruling issued Tuesday, upheld their subsequent drug convictions

Ouch.

The beloved federal judiciary smacks down the pothead conservatives.

[jimnyc]

The Supreme Court Opinion

The United States Supreme Court took the case "in light of the differences among state courts and the Courts of Appeals concerning the appropriate Fourth Amendment standard governing warrantless entry by law enforcement in an emergency setting." In a unanimous opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote the police may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury.

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally, police officers need a warrant to conduct a lawful search or seizure. However, there are exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as consent to search, the plain view doctrine, police inventories and exigent circumstances, to name a few.

Writing for the Court in Stuart, Roberts stated, "Warrants are generally required to search a person's home or his person unless 'the exigencies of the situation' make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment." According to the Court, an example of an exigent circumstance is the need to assist individuals who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury.

The attorney representing the adults argued the police were more interested in making arrests and not really interested in rendering medical attention or subduing the violence. The Court rejected this argument because the test for determining "reasonableness" under the Fourth Amendment does not take into account the officers' subjective motivations. As long as the circumstances viewed objectively justify the officers' actions, the Fourth Amendment is not violated.

The Court also rejected the argument the offenders' conduct was not serious enough to justify the intrusion into the residence. Under these circumstances, the officers had an objectively reasonable basis to believe the victim might need medical attention and the violence in the residence was only beginning. In fact, the Court stated, "[n]othing in the Fourth Amendment required them to wait until another blow rendered someone 'unconscious' or 'semi-conscious' or worse before entering. The role of a police officer includes preventing violence and restoring order, not simply rendering first aid to casualties; an officer is not like a boxing (or hockey) referee, poised to stop a bout only if it becomes too one-sided."

The Court also found the officers' manner of entry was reasonable. Specifically, the Court found officers did not violate the knock-and-announce rule. Here, after observing the punch, the officers knocked on the door and announced their presence. No one responded. The Court stated that once the announcement was made, the officers were allowed to enter. It would "serve no purpose to require [the police] to stand dumbly at the door awaiting a response while those within brawled on, oblivious to [the police] presence."

Conclusion

In summary, if police officers responding to a call at a residence have an objectively reasonable basis for believing an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury, they may enter the residence even if they do not possess a warrant. Under these circumstances, law enforcement officers will not violate the Fourth Amendment.

http://www.lawofficer.com/article/magazine-feature/warrantless-search-seizure

[jimnyc]

Their PR states the same, that they HAD to make sure everyone was safe, and as I suspected, it was obstructing an officer. It is their DUTY to ensure the safety, and they were impeding that process. All the law and precedent is leaning heavily in favor of the police. It seems the only way some will get their way is if they take it to the courts and have the SC perhaps revisit these warrantless entries, but for now it appears to be 100% legal and in order with previous decisions and protocol/procedure.


In a press release, Cotati Police said the officers’ actions were justified because it was a call for domestic violence, and as such, the officers could not leave without making sure everyone inside the apartment was safe.

“To do so would be a neglect of duty,” said the statement. “Due to the exigent circumstances, the officers were forced to kick the door open in order to enter the apartment. Constitutional law allows for officers to make entries under these types of circumstances without a warrant.”

Wood was arrested and charged with obstructing an officer and false imprisonment, according to the article.

http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/6236826-Video-of-Calif-police-entering-house-TASERing-man-criticized/?nlid=6237315/

[taft2012]

What is also missing from this discussion is the known domestic violence history of the people in the video. It could very well be an extensive history, but we couldn't know that from the video alone.

In New York State, the police must prepare a DIR (Domestic Incident Report) for every 911 call about domestic violence. Even if they show up and it turns out no such address exists, they are *STILL* required to prepare the form for a residence that doesn't even exist. All information is maintained in an accessible database.

The point being; the domestic violence history of a household is known to the police.

[Missileman]

They need to literally verify who the homeowners are and verify the safety of all. Sorry, but that's their job, and they do it all the time. Marcus's links show that this type of thing is standard procedure for officers in the field. Like Gaffer said earlier to Rev, if this type of procedure is so bad to you guys, you would need to fight to have it changed. As for now, this line says it all. And like it says, they need to make sure that no one is injured inside, especially when you have people that seem like they are hiding something.

Refusal of entry or no response to a knock at the door may require a forced entrance to check safety of people inside. Law Enforcement may also make a warrantless entry to conduct a search if emergency /exigent circumstances exist. Law Enforcement must have a reasonable belief that such an emergency does exist (i.e. if law enforcement believes that someone is in distress and in need of assistance).

I wish you'd make up your mind as to whether we're talking about taking care of things on the porch or a room by room search of the residence for someone who might be in danger. And the statute says MAY require a forced entry, not REQUIRES a forced entry. As someone else brought up, we aren't privy to the history of this couple...they certainly have one now if they didn't. It also clearly states they can make entry IF an emergency exists. A couple standing calmly at the door ISN'T an emergency. Refusing entry ISN'T an emergency. Further, it implies that if no emergency exists, they need a WARRANT!

[Missileman]

I didn't read through every regulation that Marcus posted, so I don't know if they covered this already:

Domestic Violence is not limited to husband vs. wife. All of the children living in the home have to be accounted for as well, to ensure they are not being abused, neglected, or maltreated. Police are taught to casually scan around for food supplies, pop open the refrigerator door, to get an idea of how well the children are being fed and cared for. If there are five children in the house and only a six pack of Coors in the refrigerator...... it's pretty easy to figure out that this situation needs to be closely examined. Especially if the children look dirty and malnourished.

Child abuse/neglect is part of Domestic Violence.

Also, there may be extended family members residing in the household; in-laws, cousins, etc. They are also covered under Domestic Violence statutes.

So, Missileman's "The husband and the wife were right there" crap doesn't wash.

Says the apparent proponent of "random" child welfare sweeps.

[taft2012]

I see...everything will be okay as long as you don't object to your rights being stomped on.

:lol:

You're insane. You paranoid nut jobs seem to think the police cruise around all day snooping around for ways to gain entry into your private abode. That it just kills us that we can't go inside and laugh at your Roebuck catalog furniture.

Speaking from experience: Every cop in that video would have been infinitely happier if that radio call had never existed, and instead they were able to sit in their radio cars over by the park, drink a nice cup of coffee, and watch the pretty girls walk by.

[taft2012]

Says the apparent proponent of "random" child welfare sweeps.

WTF are you talking about "random child welfare sweeps"?

Where TF do you get that from?

Are you seriously mentally ill?

[Missileman]

:lol:

You're insane. You paranoid nut jobs seem to think the police cruise around all day snooping around for ways to gain entry into your private abode. That it just kills us that we can't go inside and laugh at your Roebuck catalog furniture.

Speaking from experience: Every cop in that video would have been infinitely happier if that radio call had never existed, and instead they were able to sit in their radio cars over by the park, drink a nice cup of coffee, and watch the pretty girls walk by.

Yep...cops NEVER break the law, NEVER abuse authority, NEVER lie in court, NEVER over-react...NEVER, NEVER, NEVER. :slap:

[taft2012]

Yep...cops NEVER break the law, NEVER abuse authority, NEVER lie in court, NEVER over-react...NEVER, NEVER, NEVER. :slap:

I'm sorry, did somebody say that?

I must have missed it.

:tinfoil:

[jimnyc]

I wish you'd make up your mind as to whether we're talking about taking care of things on the porch or a room by room search of the residence for someone who might be in danger. And the statute says MAY require a forced entry, not REQUIRES a forced entry. As someone else brought up, we aren't privy to the history of this couple...they certainly have one now if they didn't. It also clearly states they can make entry IF an emergency exists. A couple standing calmly at the door ISN'T an emergency. Refusing entry ISN'T an emergency. Further, it implies that if no emergency exists, they need a WARRANT!

Disagree all you want, it doesn't change the procedures they perform, nor does it change precedent and past decisions. And there's nothing to make up my mind about, my stance has remained the same throughout. You're just getting snippy and acting immature because you disagree with me. So be it, but it's always a sign of a frustrated person debating when they do so. I have no dog in the battle, but I do understand law and precedent.

Bottom line- they MUST ensure the safety, and California case law shows that they can enter without a warrant if they feel they may need to locate and protect a victim of DV.

[jimnyc]

I'm sorry, did somebody say that?

I must have missed it.

:tinfoil:

Like Rev has done, overreact and make the other persons argument sound outrageous. It happens often, but don't worry, most people see through the transparency.

[Missileman]

Disagree all you want, it doesn't change the procedures they perform, nor does it change precedent and past decisions. And there's nothing to make up my mind about, my stance has remained the same throughout. You're just getting snippy and acting immature because you disagree with me. So be it, but it's always a sign of a frustrated person debating when they do so. I have no dog in the battle, but I do understand law and precedent.

Bottom line- they MUST ensure the safety, and California case law shows that they can enter without a warrant if they feel they may need to locate and protect a victim of DV.

The frustration is driven by your new? inability to read. I pointed out the wording of the statute that CLEARLY states that UNLESS an emergency/exigent circumstance exists the cops need a warrant. This is your link, highlighted in red, because you were sure it made your case. Now that I've shown it makes mine instead, you want to change the subject to me being snippy. :lame2:

I'm not arguing that cops don't have a responsibilty to ensure safety, I'm arguing they have to follow the law while doing so.

[jimnyc]

I have no frustration at all. The law backs up what I say. The SC and other precedent backs up what I say. California courts agree with what I say. They entered the home in this case, which I feel was the appropriate action. They tazed those that were obstructing justice. I see absolutely no problem at all with the way the police handled this. Why would I be frustrated, because they did something correctly, and the law and past precedent agrees with me? :laugh2:

[taft2012]

Missileman doesn't strike me as being one the typical pothead conservative/faux libertarian types.

He strikes me as a normal conservative who has been swayed by a few carefully placed buzzwords and phrases designed to seduce conservatives into insanity.

We'll see. His arguments have run up against a stonewall. Rev and crew will appear to continue to be banging their heads on that same wall, simply because they don't really believe the tripe they're peddling in the first place. So they don't care. They're liberals trolling for conservatives like Missileman.

Let's see if Missileman can be lured back to sanity or not.

[Missileman]

I have no frustration at all. The law backs up what I say. The SC and other precedent backs up what I say. California courts agree with what I say. They entered the home in this case, which I feel was the appropriate action. They tazed those that were obstructing justice. I see absolutely no problem at all with the way the police handled this. Why would I be frustrated, because they did something correctly, and the law and past precedent agrees with me? :laugh2:

I didn't say you were frustrated. And I think you need to go back and read more thoroughly what the SC wrote. Their stance is in line with my position, not yours. A warrant is required to enter someone's house UNLESS police have a reasonable belief an emergency exists, period. As I previously stated, a couple standing at the door talking with police ISN'T an emergency, nor is refusing entry, nor is demanding that police follow the 4th Amendment and obtain a warrant.

[Missileman]

Missileman doesn't strike me as being one the typical pothead conservative/faux libertarian types.

He strikes me as a normal conservative who has been swayed by a few carefully placed buzzwords and phrases designed to seduce conservatives into insanity.

We'll see. His arguments have run up against a stonewall. Rev and crew will appear to continue to be banging their heads on that same wall, simply because they don't really believe the tripe they're peddling in the first place. So they don't care. They're liberals trolling for conservatives like Missileman.

Let's see if Missileman can be lured back to sanity or not.

There is nothing insane about expecting the cops to follow the law while performing their duties.

My argument hasn't run into, but rather is resting quite comfortably on the rock wall otherwise known as the 4th Amendment.

[jimnyc]

I didn't say you were frustrated. And I think you need to go back and read more thoroughly what the SC wrote. Their stance is in line with my position, not yours. A warrant is required to enter someone's house UNLESS police have a reasonable belief an emergency exists, period. As I previously stated, a couple standing at the door talking with police ISN'T an emergency, nor is refusing entry, nor is demanding that police follow the 4th Amendment and obtain a warrant.

That's your belief. The police HAVE NO IDEA who occupy the home and whether there is any danger behind the scenes, which is why it is their duty to check things out and ensure everyone is safe. Of course if someone were doing something wrong they would lie and say there is no problem. Pretty much everyone the police confront proclaim their innocence. If the police walked every time someone claimed innocence, there would be all kinds of criminals still on the streets and perhaps more victims of DV that they didn't investigate properly.

You THINK it wasn't an emergency. But the 911 call alone makes it an emergency, and their continued refusal to come out and help put things to rest made it even worse, and illegal in fact, hence the obstruction charge.

You can say "period" all you want - but like us - how about supplying SC cases, state cases or precedent that shows that police MUST get a warrant when on a DV call and are refused entry?

[jimnyc]

There is nothing insane about expecting the cops to follow the law while performing their duties.

My argument hasn't run into, but rather is resting quite comfortably on the rock wall otherwise known as the 4th Amendment.

Their duty is to investigate a 911 call and ensure the safety of everyone in the household. Their duty is not to take the word of some unknown person in a window.

[taft2012]

A warrant is required to enter someone's house UNLESS police have a reasonable belief an emergency exists, period.



What you are saying simply isn't true. You're wrong.


Here's an introduction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law



An exigent circumstance, in the American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law) of criminal procedure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_procedure), allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a search warrant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant), or if they have a "knock and announce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock_and_announce)" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_%28law%29) faces imminent destruction, or a suspect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect) will escape.
In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstance means:

An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litmus_test) for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law#cite_not e-1)

Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law#cite_not e-2)
Exigent circumstances may make a warrantless search constitutional if probable cause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause) exists. The existence of exigent circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law#cite_not e-3) There is no absolute test for determining if exigent circumstances exist, but general factors have been identified. These include: clear evidence of probable cause; the seriousness of the offense and likelihood of destruction of evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_%28law%29); limitations on the search to minimize the intrusion only to preventing destruction of evidence; and clear indications of exigency.
Exigency may be determined by: degree of urgency involved; amount of time needed to get a search warrant; whether evidence is about to be removed or destroyed; danger at the site; knowledge of the suspect that police are on his or her trail; and/or ready destructibility of the evidence.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law#cite_not e-4) In determining the time necessary to obtain a warrant, a telephonic warrant should be considered. As electronic data may be altered or eradicated in seconds, in a factually compelling case the doctrine of exigent circumstances will support a warrantless seizure.
Even in exigent circumstances, while a warrantless seizure may be permitted, a subsequent warrant to search may still be necessary.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law#cite_not e-5)

Exigent circumstance are taught to police recruits as "The Three E's"

Emergency
Escape
Evidence

As article says, there's no precise one size fits all formula for every incident, and there are an infinite number of mitigating circumstances for every case. That's why the courts have Mapp hearings before criminal trials.

[Missileman]

What you are saying simply isn't true. You're wrong.


Here's an introduction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law



Exigent circumstance are taught to police recruits as "The Three E's"

Emergency
Escape
Evidence

As article says, there's no precise one size fits all formula for every incident, and there are an infinite number of mitigating circumstances for every case. That's why the courts have Mapp hearings before criminal trials.

Yes, I didn't include "exigent circumstance" in my statement. Fine.

A warrant is required to enter someone's house UNLESS police have a reasonable belief an emergency/exigent circumstance exists, period. A couple standing at the door talking with police ISN'T an emergency or exigent circumstance, nor is refusing entry, nor is demanding that police follow the 4th Amendment and obtain a warrant.

Better?

[Missileman]

That's your belief. The police HAVE NO IDEA who occupy the home and whether there is any danger behind the scenes, which is why it is their duty to check things out and ensure everyone is safe. Of course if someone were doing something wrong they would lie and say there is no problem. Pretty much everyone the police confront proclaim their innocence. If the police walked every time someone claimed innocence, there would be all kinds of criminals still on the streets and perhaps more victims of DV that they didn't investigate properly.

You THINK it wasn't an emergency. But the 911 call alone makes it an emergency, and their continued refusal to come out and help put things to rest made it even worse, and illegal in fact, hence the obstruction charge.

You can say "period" all you want - but like us - how about supplying SC cases, state cases or precedent that shows that police MUST get a warrant when on a DV call and are refused entry?

A call to 911 doesn't make it an emergency...get real. "Hello, 911. They didn't give me a large french fries in my order when I went through the drive-through" OMG....911 call, call out the SWAT teams! :laugh2:


Your link to the SC already says that in the absence of an emergency/exigent circumstances a warrant is required...I keep pointing it out to you, and you keep ignoring it.

[BillyBob]

I'm sorry, did somebody say that?

I must have missed it.

:tinfoil:


Looks like he turned your own tactic against you. lol

[taft2012]

Yes, I didn't include "exigent circumstance" in my statement. Fine.

A warrant is required to enter someone's house UNLESS police have a reasonable belief an emergency/exigent circumstance exists, period. A couple standing at the door talking with police ISN'T an emergency or exigent circumstance, nor is refusing entry, nor is demanding that police follow the 4th Amendment and obtain a warrant.

Better?

Uh, no.

The whole point is that the courts have consistently declared over the years, all over the country, up to the federal courts, that this scenario fits the exigent circumstances exception.

You may feel as though it doesn't fit their description, but it does. If it didn't, the judge would have thrown this case right out of court and invalidated the arrests.

Furthermore, as I said, we do not know what else the police have to further articulate their actions in this video.

We don't know what the 911 said and described what was happening. The police do.

And as I said, child abuse is also falls under the umbrella of domestic violence. The call may not have involved the condition of the wife or husband, but rather that of the children. The police know what the call was about.

And finally, we do not know the domestic violence history of this household. The police do.

[BillyBob]

Uh, no.

The whole point is that the courts have consistently declared over the years, all over the country, up to the federal courts, that this scenario fits the exigent circumstances exception.

You may feel as though it doesn't fit their description, but it does. If it didn't, the judge would have thrown this case right out of court and invalidated the arrests.
.


Court supported tyranny does not make it any less tyrannical.

[taft2012]

Court supported tyranny does not make it any less tyrannical.

Hey Skeezix, the first search and seizure case didn't come before the USSC until 1914. That's when you liberals started inventing BS criminal rights that theretofore never existed, like Miranda "Rights".

Stop trying to describe rulings of your liberal activist courts as "The Constitution" and trying to portray the actual US Constitution as tyranny.

If you think the Founders intended the 4th Amendment to give an abuser some added time to beat his child senseless while the police ambled away on horseback to track down a judge 100 miles away to write out warrant, you're smoking too much of that stuff you're itching to legalize.

[taft2012]

A call to 911 doesn't make it an emergency...get real. "Hello, 911. They didn't give me a large french fries in my order when I went through the drive-through" OMG....911 call, call out the SWAT teams! :laugh2:


Your link to the SC already says that in the absence of an emergency/exigent circumstances a warrant is required...I keep pointing it out to you, and you keep ignoring it.

You're an idiot.

[jimnyc]

A call to 911 doesn't make it an emergency...get real. "Hello, 911. They didn't give me a large french fries in my order when I went through the drive-through" OMG....911 call, call out the SWAT teams! :laugh2:


Your link to the SC already says that in the absence of an emergency/exigent circumstances a warrant is required...I keep pointing it out to you, and you keep ignoring it.

911 calls are for emergencies, and they treat them as such until their investigation tells them otherwise. In the case of the fries, they would know the minute the idiot spoke the words. In this case, they don't know until they fully investigate and ensure everyone is safe/

I have not ignored what you pointed out. I've stated that it was an emergency situation, based on the call and the obstruction by the unknown people in the window.

[taft2012]

911 calls are for emergencies, and they treat them as such until their investigation tells them otherwise. In the case of the fries, they would know the minute the idiot spoke the words. In this case, they don't know until they fully investigate and ensure everyone is safe/

I have not ignored what you pointed out. I've stated that it was an emergency situation, based on the call and the obstruction by the unknown people in the window.

Both of our responses to Missileman were correct, but mine was more accurate.

Why argue with willful ignorance?

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jimnyc http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=639132#post639132)
They need to literally verify who the homeowners are and verify the safety of all. Sorry, but that's their job, and they do it all the time. Marcus's links show that this type of thing is standard procedure for officers in the field. Like Gaffer said earlier to Rev, if this type of procedure is so bad to you guys, you would need to fight to have it changed. As for now, this line says it all. And like it says, they need to make sure that no one is injured inside, especially when you have people that seem like they are hiding something.

Refusal of entry or no response to a knock at the door may require a forced entrance to check safety of people inside. Law Enforcement may also make a warrantless entry to conduct a search if emergency /exigent circumstances exist. Law Enforcement must have a reasonable belief that such an emergency does exist (i.e. if law enforcement believes that someone is in distress and in need of assistance).



I didn't read through every regulation that Marcus posted, so I don't know if they covered this already:

Domestic Violence is not limited to husband vs. wife. All of the children living in the home have to be accounted for as well, to ensure they are not being abused, neglected, or maltreated. Police are taught to casually scan around for food supplies, pop open the refrigerator door, to get an idea of how well the children are being fed and cared for. If there are five children in the house and only a six pack of Coors in the refrigerator...... it's pretty easy to figure out that this situation needs to be closely examined. Especially if the children look dirty and malnourished.

Child abuse/neglect is part of Domestic Violence.

Also, there may be extended family members residing in the household; in-laws, cousins, etc. They are also covered under Domestic Violence statutes.

So, Missileman's "The husband and the wife were right there" crap doesn't wash.

I believe the linked pieces cover it. If not, it's easy enough to find with a GOOGLE search. My sources took about 3 minutes to find. I don't think they've convinced Rev or Missile though.

[BillyBob]

Hey Skeezix, the first search and seizure case didn't come before the USSC until 1914. That's when you liberals started inventing BS criminal rights that theretofore never existed, like Miranda "Rights".

Stop trying to describe rulings of your liberal activist courts as "The Constitution" and trying to portray the actual US Constitution as tyranny.

If you think the Founders intended the 4th Amendment to give an abuser some added time to beat his child senseless while the police ambled away on horseback to track down a judge 100 miles away to write out warrant, you're smoking too much of that stuff you're itching to legalize.


Do you ever think before you type or do you just puke it out and see what it looks like afterward?

[Missileman]

911 calls are for emergencies, and they treat them as such until their investigation tells them otherwise. In the case of the fries, they would know the minute the idiot spoke the words. In this case, they don't know until they fully investigate and ensure everyone is safe/

I have not ignored what you pointed out. I've stated that it was an emergency situation, based on the call and the obstruction by the unknown people in the window.

The couple didn't commit obstruction until AFTER the cops broke into their house. And FYI, you know how you can tell your "emergency" argument is a holey bucket? If it had been an actual emergency, they wouldn't have waited on the porch for 10 minutes before entering.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Police are secondary, as are the kids. So long as the occupant is visible through a window, and declares that all is kosher, and the police don't have a warrant - that's where the call/investigation ends. Not placing words in mouths, it just seems that is what I am getting out of this.

But lets face it, people lie, especially when the PO PO show up, and they hear every excuse known to man. This is why they stick to procedure and simply ensure the safety of the occupants and get to the bottom of the call, even if the occupants are against the questioning/investigation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srw3RdiIlrQ

There's also this little problem that Rev and Missile don't seem interested in addressing...

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/southtownstar_whywomenlieaboutdv_5-21-09.pdf

Victims often lie to protect their abusers, said Deborah Tucker, executive director of the National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence. They blame themselves, thinking they provoked a fight or a beating. Then they hide the hur t from family and friends,

many times to protect them, too, Tucker said. "You hide it if you are somehow feeling that perhaps you contributed to (abuse)," Tucker said. "You get convinced that if you just tiptoe around on egg shells and don't say this and do that that, it will never happen again, or you're threatened if you go to your family. Many times people do it to protect family, tokeep them from potentially being a target."



Can Rev or Missile say this was not the case in the situation being discussed? No.

Can any of us say this was the case in the situation being discussed? No.

Can the officers know one way or the other without a complete investigation? No.

Thus, they are required to investigate. Not look though a window and take someones word for it and go away, but investigate. Thoroughly.

[BillyBob]

Can Rev or Missile say this was not the case in the situation being discussed? No.

Can any of us say this was the case in the situation being discussed? No.

Can the officers know one way or the other without a complete investigation? No.

Thus, they are required to investigate. Not look though a window and take someones word for it and go away, but investigate. Thoroughly.


The nazi cops should have gotten a warrant [and left their tazers in the car] if they were determined to enter that citizen's house.

[jimnyc]

The couple didn't commit obstruction until AFTER the cops broke into their house. And FYI, you know how you can tell your "emergency" argument is a holey bucket? If it had been an actual emergency, they wouldn't have waited on the porch for 10 minutes before entering.

The clip I watched was less than 2 minutes long, I don't know how long things went prior to that. By refusing to obey the orders of the police to help them ascertain whether someone was in danger or not, they were obstructing the officers from doing their jobs. They gave them a reasonable amount of time to comply. As Marcus posted, they HAVE to go in and ensure the safety of everyone. And as Taft has posted, they must also look at other factors when performing a domestic. They have a job to do when going on domestic violence calls. Just because someone disagrees, or someone yells through a window that everything is OK, that doesn't mean the police can alter the way they handle DV calls and the way they were trained to handle calls. They should treat every single DV call as if it's a safety issue until 100% sure that it's not.

[taft2012]

Do you ever think before you type or do you just puke it out and see what it looks like afterward?

How about an actual answer?

Let's turn the clock back, to say the year, oh, let's say 1885. A time when the Founders' vision was still pretty much in place before all of this liberal activism on the courts came to forbearance.

Do you think law enforcement would have been expected to get a warrant?

Do you think the judge would have tossed the case out of court because the entry was made without a warrant?

Or is your argument that the "REAL MEANING" of the 4th Amendment wasn't discovered until well into the 20th century, when courts began issuing rulings extending rights to criminals and limiting the tools available to law enforcement?

Is that it? It took men like Thurgood Marshall to figure out what James Madison really meant?

Sort of like finding an "emanation of a penumbra"?

"Oh look! Abortion's been a Constitutional right all along, who'd-a-thunkit?"

I know you can't possibly answer that, so please carry on with the ad hominems.

[Missileman]

The nazi cops should have gotten a warrant [and left their tazers in the car] if they were determined to enter that citizen's house.

BINGO! Minus the nazi adjective.

[Missileman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srw3RdiIlrQ

There's also this little problem that Rev and Missile don't seem interested in addressing...

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/southtownstar_whywomenlieaboutdv_5-21-09.pdf


Can Rev or Missile say this was not the case in the situation being discussed? No.

Can any of us say this was the case in the situation being discussed? No.

Can the officers know one way or the other without a complete investigation? No.

Thus, they are required to investigate. Not look though a window and take someones word for it and go away, but investigate. Thoroughly.

I haven't said the cops shouldn't have investigated the matter until they were satisfied everyone was safe. I'm saying, under the circumstances I observed on the video, they should have obtained a warrant if they felt they needed to enter the house. There was no emergency to justify them breaking in.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=639203#post639203)
Can Rev or Missile say this was not the case in the situation being discussed? No.

Can any of us say this was the case in the situation being discussed? No.

Can the officers know one way or the other without a complete investigation? No.

Thus, they are required to investigate. Not look though a window and take someones word for it and go away, but investigate. Thoroughly.




The nazi cops should have gotten a warrant [and left their tazers in the car] if they were determined to enter that citizen's house.

Thanks for not bothering to answer my questions and confirming my suspicions about yourself. Carry on with your stupidity.

[jimnyc]

I'll repeat what a Cali court stated, and I already posted:

SANTA ANA — Police officers may enter a home without a search warrant when they suspect someone may be in danger of domestic violence even if that person says everything is all right, a state appeals court ruled in a Newport Beach case.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I haven't said the cops shouldn't have investigated the matter until they were satisfied everyone was safe. I'm saying, under the circumstances I observed on the video, they should have obtained a warrant if they felt they needed to enter the house. There was no emergency to justify them breaking in.

And we're saying it is asinine to base that opinion solely on a 2 minute video of a situation you were not personally there to view. How much more went on that you did not see? Maybe nothing... maybe a shit lot more. That's the issue... we just don't know. Without an investigation, as most police department require, the police just don't know either.

I posted how women protect their abusers many times, but you seem to ignore or dismiss that fact. How do YOU know that she wasn't protecting her abuser? How do the police? You don't, and neither do they. Without an investigation, as most police department require, the police just don't know either.

[Missileman]

The clip I watched was less than 2 minutes long, I don't know how long things went prior to that. By refusing to obey the orders of the police to help them ascertain whether someone was in danger or not, they were obstructing the officers from doing their jobs. They gave them a reasonable amount of time to comply. As Marcus posted, they HAVE to go in and ensure the safety of everyone. And as Taft has posted, they must also look at other factors when performing a domestic. They have a job to do when going on domestic violence calls. Just because someone disagrees, or someone yells through a window that everything is OK, that doesn't mean the police can alter the way they handle DV calls and the way they were trained to handle calls. They should treat every single DV call as if it's a safety issue until 100% sure that it's not.

If they feel they HAVE to go in, they HAVE to do it legally. Legally entails WITH a warrant unless there's an emergency/exigent circumstance and your "emergency" argument is pile of burning wreckage at this point.

[BillyBob]

Thanks for not bothering to answer my questions and confirming my suspicions about yourself. Carry on with your stupidity.


I made a topical statement about your post. It's not my fault it was beyond your very limited understanding.

Now try to stay focused and discuss the topic.

[jimnyc]

If they feel they HAVE to go in, they HAVE to do it legally. Legally entails WITH a warrant unless there's an emergency/exigent circumstance and your "emergency" argument is pile of burning wreckage at this point.

That's your opinion. I disagree, and so do the courts.

[taft2012]

How about an actual answer?

Let's turn the clock back, to say the year, oh, let's say 1885. A time when the Founders' vision was still pretty much in place before all of this liberal activism on the courts came to forbearance.

Do you think law enforcement would have been expected to get a warrant?

Do you think the judge would have tossed the case out of court because the entry was made without a warrant?

Or is your argument that the "REAL MEANING" of the 4th Amendment wasn't discovered until well into the 20th century, when courts began issuing rulings extending rights to criminals and limiting the tools available to law enforcement?

Is that it? It took men like Thurgood Marshall to figure out what James Madison really meant?

Sort of like finding an "emanation of a penumbra"?

"Oh look! Abortion's been a Constitutional right all along, who'd-a-thunkit?"

I know you can't possibly answer that, so please carry on with the ad hominems.

I was right. He can't answer.

[Marcus Aurelius]

If they feel they HAVE to go in, they HAVE to do it legally. Legally entails WITH a warrant unless there's an emergency/exigent circumstance and your "emergency" argument is pile of burning wreckage at this point.

Luckily, the police on the scene get to make the determination of exigence, not you watching a 2 minute, incomplete video.

[jimnyc]

Luckily, the police on the scene get to make the determination of exigence, not you watching a 2 minute, incomplete video.

I think they need to see blood, or someone screaming for help, no? :)

[Marcus Aurelius]

I made a topical statement about your post. It's not my fault it was beyond your very limited understanding.

Now try to stay focused and discuss the topic.

I was, you weren't. Live with your FAIL, dumb ass.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I think they need to see blood, or someone screaming for help, no? :)

The blood could be where they spilled pasta sauce last night, and the screaming could be the tv in the basement.:poke:

[taft2012]

I think they need to see blood, or someone screaming for help, no? :)

No.

It requires a severed limb flying out the window.

And even that only raises the situation to the level of "reasonable suspicion".

[BillyBob]

..... so please carry on with the ad hominems.


You mean like these:


Hey Skeezix,...... you're smoking too much of that stuff you're itching to legalize.



You're an idiot.

[BillyBob]

That's your opinion. I disagree, and so do the courts.

Court ordered tyranny isn't any less tyrannical.

[jimnyc]

Everyone, please.... This is a good topic/discussion, let's lay back on the personal crap and try to get back on topic. Go to the cage forum if you guys want to e-beat the crap out of one another, or simply to have continued insults.

:beer:

[taft2012]

You mean like these:



You can't answer, can you?

Admit it, you hate the US Constitution the Founding Fathers left us.

You love the bastardizations inflicted on it by liberal activist courts during the 20th century.

And the proof is that just about everything you've expressed admiration for in "The Constitution," or advocated for, was not in place until a minimum of 125 years after it was written.

You can't argue with that.... as I said. And as I correctly predicted, you responded to a very specific question with ad-hominems.

[Missileman]

I think they need to see blood, or someone screaming for help, no? :)

Of course not..."spidey-sense" is admissable in court! :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

Of course not..."spidey-sense" is admissable in court! :rolleyes:

As is dereliction of duty when they don't follow protocol.

[taft2012]

Court ordered tyranny isn't any less tyrannical.

Court ordered liberal activism isn't any less liberal activism. :laugh:

[BillyBob]

I was, you weren't. Live with your FAIL, dumb ass.


http://laughliverepeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/temper-tantrum22.jpg



I'm sorry it upsets you that you are incapable of articulating yourself during a heated discussion.

[taft2012]

I'm feeling dirty.

This must be what it feels like to be raping someone in a prison cell.

[BillyBob]

Court ordered liberal activism isn't any less liberal activism. :laugh:

That is correct. I believe the courts jim referred to which promote this police tyranny were in California. No libs there, though.

[BillyBob]

And as I correctly predicted, you responded to a very specific question with ad-hominems.


You mean like these:


Hey Skeezix,...... you're smoking too much of that stuff you're itching to legalize.



You're an idiot.

[taft2012]

That is correct. I believe the courts jim referred to which promote this police tyranny were in California. No libs there, though.

Yeah, so why did it take 125 years for the original intent (so to speak) of the 4th Amendment to start to emege?

Was the country run by power-crazed liberals up until 1914, and then some good conservative judges like Thurgood Marshall finally started ascending to the court?

[taft2012]

Yeah, so why did it take 125 years for the original intent (so to speak) of the 4th Amendment to start to emege?

Was the country run by power-crazed liberals up until 1914, and then some good conservative judges like Thurgood Marshall finally started ascending to the court?

and then, suddenly, Billy Bob got very quiet.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I'm sorry it upsets you that you are incapable of articulating yourself during a heated discussion.

I am sure that with 2 possible exceptions, most people posting in this thread would say I've articulated myself to a much higher degree than you have. But hey, why would you care about facts and such, right?

carry on.

[Missileman]

And we're saying it is asinine to base that opinion solely on a 2 minute video of a situation you were not personally there to view. How much more went on that you did not see? Maybe nothing... maybe a shit lot more. That's the issue... we just don't know. Without an investigation, as most police department require, the police just don't know either.

I posted how women protect their abusers many times, but you seem to ignore or dismiss that fact. How do YOU know that she wasn't protecting her abuser? How do the police? You don't, and neither do they. Without an investigation, as most police department require, the police just don't know either.

Again, I have no issue with the investigation, I take issue with the entry.

[BillyBob]

I am sure that with 2 possible exceptions, most people posting in this thread would say I've articulated myself to a much higher degree than you have. But hey, why would you care about facts and such, right?

carry on.


So being part of the majority makes you feel better about your own tyranny?

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=639213#post639213)
And we're saying it is asinine to base that opinion solely on a 2 minute video of a situation you were not personally there to view. How much more went on that you did not see? Maybe nothing... maybe a shit lot more. That's the issue... we just don't know. Without an investigation, as most police department require, the police just don't know either.

I posted how women protect their abusers many times, but you seem to ignore or dismiss that fact. How do YOU know that she wasn't protecting her abuser? How do the police? You don't, and neither do they. Without an investigation, as most police department require, the police just don't know either.



Again, I have no issue with the investigation, I take issue with the entry.

Yet you fail to comprehend that the investigation REQUIRED entry.

[Missileman]

I'll repeat what a Cali court stated, and I already posted:

SANTA ANA — Police officers may enter a home without a search warrant when they suspect someone may be in danger of domestic violence even if that person says everything is all right, a state appeals court ruled in a Newport Beach case.

And if that criteria isn't met, they can go with "Police officers may enter a home without a search warrant when they know someone IS in danger of police violence even if that person is standing in plain sight with their hands in the air.

[jimnyc]

Yet you fail to comprehend that the investigation REQUIRED entry.

I believe the 'checklist' you posted earlier is more or less standard procedure within most departments. They get called to a DV, they are REQUIRED to finish the list and safety issues.

[jimnyc]

And if that criteria isn't met, they can go with "Police officers may enter a home without a search warrant when they know someone IS in danger of police violence even if that person is standing in plain sight with their hands in the air.

Read Marcus's post many pages back about being REQUIRED to do certain things on such calls. If you disagree, so be it. Obviously me stating they are required to take certain steps isn't going to change your mind. You don't see these types of calls as emergencies, but I do. I doubt either one of us will change the others mind. But just like the lawsuits I'm waiting on in Boston to hopefully settle some arguments, there is already much talk around the 'net about these people 'should file a lawsuit'. I would love to see it hit the courts, with this video as a piece of evidence, and see what the courts have to say.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I believe the 'checklist' you posted earlier is more or less standard procedure within most departments. They get called to a DV, they are REQUIRED to finish the list and safety issues.

Simple concept really. I fail to understand how it appears to be beyond their comprehension.

[WiccanLiberal]

I watched the video and have been considering a response. About twenty years ago, it was sometimes impossible to get law enforcement to act on violence within the home. Police had to become more proactive in such situations because of the public outcry. As a society, we wanted our public officials to be able to curb situations where one family member was abusing another. In many jurisdictions, they CANNOT take the word of the parties inside that all is well. And any officer will tell you that domestic calls are extremely dangerous since sometimes the supposed victim will switch sides and attack the police. To those who commented on the woman being tazed, you do realize that abuse is not exclusively male on female? Relationships can result in very strange and very public bad behavior.
In any case, the whole damned thing looks bizarre to me. I wonder if the camera wielding citizen was trying to provoke the cops into just such a confrontation. But I don't think anyone here is privy to certain knowledge as to who was in the right. The entire matter needs further investigation to get to the full truth. Anything else is just so much speculation.

[Marcus Aurelius]

So being part of the majority makes you feel better about your own tyranny?

Being right makes me feel better about being right.

[jimnyc]

I watched the video and have been considering a response. About twenty years ago, it was sometimes impossible to get law enforcement to act on violence within the home. Police had to become more proactive in such situations because of the public outcry. As a society, we wanted our public officials to be able to curb situations where one family member was abusing another. In many jurisdictions, they CANNOT take the word of the parties inside that all is well. And any officer will tell you that domestic calls are extremely dangerous since sometimes the supposed victim will switch sides and attack the police. To those who commented on the woman being tazed, you do realize that abuse is not exclusively male on female? Relationships can result in very strange and very public bad behavior.
In any case, the whole damned thing looks bizarre to me. I wonder if the camera wielding citizen was trying to provoke the cops into just such a confrontation. But I don't think anyone here is privy to certain knowledge as to who was in the right. The entire matter needs further investigation to get to the full truth. Anything else is just so much speculation.

DV calls are long known as being one of the most dangerous calls that police officers can go on. I was reading a tad on that earlier this morn and the stats on officers getting killed/injured on these types of calls was rather scary.

[Marcus Aurelius]

DV calls are long known as being one of the most dangerous calls that police officers can go on. I was reading a tad on that earlier this morn and the stats on officers getting killed/injured on these types of calls was rather scary.

They're just police. They're expendable.
{sarcasm}

[Missileman]

Yet you fail to comprehend that the investigation REQUIRED entry.

You fail to comprehend that entry REQUIRED a warrant.

[Marcus Aurelius]

You fail to comprehend that entry REQUIRED a warrant.

Not always, as has been pointed out to you. YOU are judging this from a 2 minute video, and fail utterly to comprehend that there may be more to the story here than those 2 minutes. Do you care that you're missing facts that might help you make a more informed opinion? Apparently not.

[Missileman]

Read Marcus's post many pages back about being REQUIRED to do certain things on such calls. If you disagree, so be it. Obviously me stating they are required to take certain steps isn't going to change your mind. You don't see these types of calls as emergencies, but I do. I doubt either one of us will change the others mind. But just like the lawsuits I'm waiting on in Boston to hopefully settle some arguments, there is already much talk around the 'net about these people 'should file a lawsuit'. I would love to see it hit the courts, with this video as a piece of evidence, and see what the courts have to say.

I'm sure it will be settled out of court with the homeowners getting a check.

[taft2012]

Damn. It's been an ugly morning for the pothead conservatives.

http://www.thesharkguys.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/nedbeatty.jpg

[Missileman]

Not always, as has been pointed out to you. YOU are judging this from a 2 minute video, and fail utterly to comprehend that there may be more to the story here than those 2 minutes. Do you care that you're missing facts that might help you make a more informed opinion? Apparently not.

My opinion is as "informed" as yours, so you can jump down off that Clydesdale any time now.

[Missileman]

Damn. It's been an ugly morning for the pothead conservatives.

http://www.thesharkguys.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/nedbeatty.jpg

We really don't care that you like to bone fat dudes in the ass.

[revelarts]

Rev - WHY would I, or anyone else, reply in a serious or respectful manner - when time and time and time again - you do like you did above, which is CONTINUALLY putting words into the mouths of others? Why can't you just debate fairly instead of making up things others never stated?

Jim there's a bit of the Pot calling the Kettle black here.

QUOTE JIM in this thread:
I know you think they should take the word of total strangers,...

But by your logic, we shouldn't even let cops in if they respond to a shooting, or someone saw a murder take place in the window - as the occupant need only tell them nothing is wrong, no?...

So we shouldn't trust the police for basically ANY call they investigate, as they can ALWAYS be making stuff up, faking calls, planting stuff....

so we should ban all entries, and make it 100% illegal for them to EVER enter without a warrant....

They should just ban police altogether then....

If we're going to prevent them from doing their jobs in every instance where it's possible that they can skirt the law. How many people busted for drugs claim it was planted? ...

I think we should reverse every single on of those charges as we just don't know if its for real or not....

they will all be sitting around with their thumbs up their asses waiting on warrants instead of doing their jobs. Most of the DV stuff happens at night. So we just let the victim perhaps continue to get beaten, while the cops sit in their cars waiting on someone to get a hold of a sleeping judge?...
"

NONE of the above i ever said. None of the above missile ever said.
but you assumed that's what we REALLY MEAN.
Are you putting THOUGHTS in our head or Words in our mouths here?
YES YOU ARE.
All you comments were long before my 1 obviously sarcastic rendering of your's and others positions here.

But For some reason you guys serious think that we want to put a handcuffs on the police from saving lives of people screaming and being beaten in a back rooms while police sit outside eating donuts.
We've NEVER said that. Never.
AND specifically the threads video does not show that.

The video shows something very different. A husband and wife in a home where the police break in and taze a woman that does not seem to be threatening, from the video. It's fine if you guys ASSUME ALL YOU WANT on the polices behalf. I'm not assuming anything -good or bad-. But NOTHING in the video shows her as a threat. and AGAIN if she was the supposed DV 'victim' then WHY TAZE HER?!?!? it's Crazy!

but the general conversation
Some of you think the that a warrant is an undue burden in cases like this and even in this case. even though they can SEE the woman is in no immediate danger, many of you have said so.

You've said that needing more evidence of some kind is just to much to ask for, and dangerous. That just 1 anonymous phone call, just 1, gives police the absolute right to kick your door in and Taze you.

That is exactly what you've been defending here.
That's not putting words you mouth, that's what you and others have done here.

So based on a phone call and nothing else the police can kick your door in, taze you, your wife and search your home.

Don't assume the police might have seen this or that, or heard this or that. Or Guess that the woman might have had a "weapon".... like a cup of coffee or sumthin.
But JUST from this video, what WE do see is.

Based on 1 phone call and nothing else the police can kick your door in, taze your wife and search your home.
You folks seem to think that that is right, legal and proper. I disagree.
based on what i see in this case. Not your made up horror shows and imagined what if dangers. They should have gotten a warrant, IF they thought someone may have been in danger.
There appears to be ZERO immediate threat in this case.


Do you see what i mean? Am i crazy? Do i hate the police?
If you think so, your the sick ones IMO.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=639257#post639257)
Not always, as has been pointed out to you. YOU are judging this from a 2 minute video, and fail utterly to comprehend that there may be more to the story here than those 2 minutes. Do you care that you're missing facts that might help you make a more informed opinion? Apparently not.



My opinion is as "informed" as yours, so you can jump down off that Clydesdale any time now.

Actually, it's not. Especially since you're only considering a 2 minute video as telling the whole story.

PLACE.

YOU.

Put in.

Your welcome.

[Missileman]

Actually, it's not. Especially since you're only considering a 2 minute video as telling the whole story.

PLACE.

YOU.

Put in.

Your welcome.

Oh...you were there? Why didn't you say so? What exactly did happen at that house in the 2 hours immediately preceeding the video? Please...inform us!

[Marcus Aurelius]

... based on what i see in this case. ...

you see a 2 minute video, and stupidly assume it is the complete, uncut, total volume of evidence in this case.

[WiccanLiberal]

You fail to comprehend that entry REQUIRED a warrant.

Legally speaking, in many jurisdictions, it does not. And warrantless entry under exigent circumstances has been upheld by the courts as in Montanez vs. Sharoh. Simply put, if an officer has any reason to suspect danger to someone in the home, they can enter. Domestic calls are a minefield for the police. If they investigate as the law requires them to do, they are faulted and if they do not, and someone is injured or killed, they are faulted. I believe many simply decide it is better to act on the assumption that the call is real and someone could be at risk.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=639264#post639264)

Actually, it's not. Especially since you're only considering a 2 minute video as telling the whole story.

PLACE.

YOU.

Put in.

Your welcome.


Oh...you were there? Why didn't you say so? What exactly did happen at that house in the 2 hours immediately preceeding the video? Please...inform us!

Oh...so YOU were there? Why didn't you say so? What exactly did happen at that house in the 2 hours immediately preceding the video? Please...inform us!

I'll take the word of the police at the scene over the word of an Internet armchair lawyer who doesn't have all the information, every time.

[Missileman]

Legally speaking, in many jurisdictions, it does not. And warrantless entry under exigent circumstances has been upheld by the courts as in Montanez vs. Sharoh. Simply put, if an officer has any reason to suspect danger to someone in the home, they can enter. Domestic calls are a minefield for the police. If they investigate as the law requires them to do, they are faulted and if they do not, and someone is injured or killed, they are faulted. I believe many simply decide it is better to act on the assumption that the call is real and someone could be at risk.

And based on what I observed in the video, as the husband and wife were both standing in plain sight with their hands up, there was no exigent circumstance to justify going in without a warrant.

[Missileman]

Oh...so YOU were there? Why didn't you say so? What exactly did happen at that house in the 2 hours immediately preceding the video? Please...inform us!

I'll take the word of the police at the scene over the word of an Internet armchair lawyer who doesn't have all the information, every time.

Super! Post a link to the words of the police that you claim you are privy to and I am uninformed of.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=639268#post639268)
Oh...so YOU were there? Why didn't you say so? What exactly did happen at that house in the 2 hours immediately preceding the video? Please...inform us!

I'll take the word of the police at the scene over the word of an Internet armchair lawyer who doesn't have all the information, every time.



Super! Post a link to the words of the police that you claim you are privy to and I am uninformed of.

You're whining like a little girl over me using your own argument against you? :lame2:

[Missileman]

You're whining like a little girl over me using your own argument against you? :lame2:

You're the one who claimed to be MORE informed on the matter. I asked you to provide that information.

[revelarts]

you see a 2 minute video, and stupidly assume it is the complete, uncut, total volume of evidence in this case.

you do.

I'm basing my comment on what is seen. not assumptions of Police perfection.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=639272#post639272)

You're whining like a little girl over me using your own argument against you? :lame2:



You're the one who claimed to be MORE informed on the matter. I asked you to provide that information.

You really can't handle it when your own arguments are used against you or your own words prove someone elses point, can you.

I said I am willing to take the words of the officers on the scene, over that of a nobody, armchair Internet lawyer like you... every time. ESPECIALLY when said nobody, armchair Internet lawyer like you bases their entire argument on a 2 minute clip of a video, which may not show the entire situation.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=639266#post639266)
you see a 2 minute video, and stupidly assume it is the complete, uncut, total volume of evidence in this case.



you do.

I'm basing my comment on what is seen. not assumptions of Police perfection.

Prove to us that the 2 minute video is all the evidence available... that the officers had nothing else to go on but what happened in that 2 minute video... that there were no interactions prior to that video... that the end all and be all... the sum total of all information pertaining to the incident, is contained in that two minute video.

Prove that.

[Missileman]

You really can't handle it when your own arguments are used against you or your own words prove someone elses point, can you.

I said I am willing to take the words of the officers on the scene, over that of a nobody, armchair Internet lawyer like you... every time. ESPECIALLY when said nobody, armchair Internet lawyer like you bases their entire argument on a 2 minute clip of a video, which may not show the entire situation.

Nice crawfish. Are you retracting your claim that your opinion is more "informed" than mine?

[taft2012]

you see a 2 minute video, and stupidly assume it is the complete, uncut, total volume of evidence in this case.

http://www.thesharkguys.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/nedbeatty.jpg

Again. Ouch.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Nice crawfish. Are you retracting your claim that your opinion is more "informed" than mine?

By definition, my opinion is more informed, as I am willing to consider additional data, while you are limiting yourself to a two minute video.

I am also quite certain the opinions of the police on the scene were based on more than that two minute video.

That is what you appear to simply be too stupid to understand. There is MORE to this than the 2 minutes we saw... I am willing to consider additional info, you are not. Ergo, my opinion is the more informed of the two.

Live with it, dumb ass.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=639266#post639266)
you see a 2 minute video, and stupidly assume it is the complete, uncut, total volume of evidence in this case.





http://www.thesharkguys.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/nedbeatty.jpg

Again. Ouch.
actually, that picture is a perfect example.

based on how they are posting in this thread, both Missile and Rev would see that one scene of 'Deliverance', and claim to high heaven that the film is about gay sex, and nothing else but gay sex.

[Missileman]

By definition, my opinion is more informed, as I am willing to consider additional data, while you are limiting yourself to a two minute video.

I am also quite certain the opinions of the police on the scene were based on more than that two minute video.

That is what you appear to simply be too stupid to understand. There is MORE to this than the 2 minutes we saw... I am willing to consider additional info, you are not. Ergo, my opinion is the more informed of the two.

Live with it, dumb ass.

Christ Almighty! Do I really have to post the definition of informed for you? What additional data, other than the conjecture you're pulling out of your ass, is your opinion based on? The simple answer is you aren't in possession of any.

[Missileman]

actually, that picture is a perfect example.

based on how they are posting in this thread, both Missile and Rev would see that one scene of 'Deliverance', and claim to high heaven that the film is about gay sex, and nothing else but gay sex.

And you'd claim the rape was justified.

[revelarts]

Prove to us that the 2 minute video is all the evidence available... that the officers had nothing else to go on but what happened in that 2 minute video... that there were no interactions prior to that video... that the end all and be all... the sum total of all information pertaining to the incident, is contained in that two minute video.

Prove that.

Prove that there's ANY extra evidence that would make all the police actions Justified Marcus.
Prove that.

Jim posted the Video not me.
All ANY of us have is the Video.
Why assume more or less either way.
Or at the very least assume the best AND the worse in BOTH directions.

But if you want to be HONEST and just talk Evidence BASED on the subject of the thread.
the VIDEO is it for Us.

And Based On the Video it looks like the Police are out of line.

If there is some unknown evidence to the police's favor. did they save a life? then Good Job police! they should get a medal.
But If there is NO MORE than what we have here, then there needs to be some corrective action taken against the cops.
If there is some unknown evidence that the police did even worse than appears here, then maybe they should lose their jobs.

Your asking people to prove.
we can't, YOU can't.

[Marcus Aurelius]

And you'd claim the rape was justified.

you really aren't very good at this.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=639285#post639285)
By definition, my opinion is more informed, as I am willing to consider additional data, while you are limiting yourself to a two minute video.

I am also quite certain the opinions of the police on the scene were based on more than that two minute video.

That is what you appear to simply be too stupid to understand. There is MORE to this than the 2 minutes we saw... I am willing to consider additional info, you are not. Ergo, my opinion is the more informed of the two.

Live with it, dumb ass.






Christ Almighty! Do I really have to post the definition of informed for you? What additional data, other than the conjecture you're pulling out of your ass, is your opinion based on? The simple answer is you aren't in possession of any.

I'll save you the trouble, dumb ass.



http://www.thefreedictionary.com/informed

in·formed (http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifn-fôrmdhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif)adj.1. Possessing, displaying, or based on reliable information: informed sources; an informed opinion.

2. Knowledgeable; educated: the informed consumer.




The police have more information than you do. I'm willing to take them at their word, unless they are proved wrong in court. So, my opinion is based on informed sources... the police. YOUR opinion is based on a 2 minute video, without the slightest consideration that the police on the scene knew more than YOU do.

Live with your failure.

[taft2012]

How about an actual answer?

Let's turn the clock back, to say the year, oh, let's say 1885. A time when the Founders' vision was still pretty much in place before all of this liberal activism on the courts came to forbearance.

Do you think law enforcement would have been expected to get a warrant?

Do you think the judge would have tossed the case out of court because the entry was made without a warrant?

Or is your argument that the "REAL MEANING" of the 4th Amendment wasn't discovered until well into the 20th century, when courts began issuing rulings extending rights to criminals and limiting the tools available to law enforcement?

Is that it? It took men like Thurgood Marshall to figure out what James Madison really meant?

Sort of like finding an "emanation of a penumbra"?

"Oh look! Abortion's been a Constitutional right all along, who'd-a-thunkit?"

I know you can't possibly answer that, so please carry on with the ad hominems.

I'm going to bump this question up, because I'd really like an answer from the pothead conservatives. :rolleyes:

[Missileman]

you really aren't very good at this.

Wayyyyyyyyyyy better than you!

[Marcus Aurelius]

Wayyyyyyyyyyy better than you!

Yes, making decisions based on a 2 minute video without even being willing to concede there is likely more information available to those on the scene and being willing to consider that information in your decision making process CERTAINLY means you're better than anyone else at this.:rolleyes:

dumb ass.

[Missileman]

I'll save you the trouble, dumb ass.



http://www.thefreedictionary.com/informed


The police have more information than you do. I'm willing to take them at their word, unless they are proved wrong in court. So, my opinion is based on informed sources... the police. YOUR opinion is based on a 2 minute video, without the slightest consideration that the police on the scene knew more than YOU do.

Live with your failure.

Once again, you lay claim to that which you don't have. The police no doubt have more info, but you sure as hell don't and THEIR knowledge doesn't make YOU more informed...idiot!

[Marcus Aurelius]

Once again, you lay claim to that which you don't have. The police no doubt have more info, but you sure as hell don't and THEIR knowledge doesn't make YOU more informed...idiot!

being willing to include whatever they have, unlike you, does make me the more informed of the two of us. I'm willing to consider additional evidence, you are not.

Live with your complete, abject failure. You have a bone to pick with police, we all know that. Your continued chest pounding doesn't make you look any smarter.

[aboutime]

Wayyyyyyyyyyy better than you!


That almost sounds like the yell's I've heard from the people being held in locked rooms, while they await Bookings.

[Marcus Aurelius]

That almost sounds like the yell's I've heard from the people being held in locked rooms, while they await Bookings.

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/659441/rofl_emoticon.gif

[Missileman]

being willing to include whatever they have, unlike you, does make me the more informed of the two of us. I'm willing to consider additional evidence, you are not.

Live with your complete, abject failure. You have a bone to pick with police, we all know that. Your continued chest pounding doesn't make you look any smarter.

I'm absolutely willing to include it once it's divulged. You want to base your argument on it before you even know what it is. Crawl back on the short bus, dummy!

[aboutime]

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/659441/rofl_emoticon.gif


Exactly the way I felt when I heard it Marcus, but then again. That is more TRUE than those who complain so much about cops want, or wish to hear, or read. The truth always hurts the most for those who ignore, or break the laws.

[aboutime]

I'm absolutely willing to include it once it's divulged. You want to base your argument on it before you even know what it is. Crawl back on the short bus, dummy!


Missileman. Weren't you one of the members who insisted that Name calling should be stopped? Then we are forced to hear, and read your immaturity being displayed here. And it's alright for you...but nobody else..Is that right?

[Missileman]

Missileman. Weren't you one of the members who insisted that Name calling should be stopped? Then we are forced to hear, and read your immaturity being displayed here. And it's alright for you...but nobody else..Is that right?

I think you're confused!

[BillyBob]

Being right makes me feel better about being right.

That's because it happens so rarely. I'm sure your birthdays occur more often.

[BillyBob]

Actually, it's not. Especially since you're only considering a 2 minute video as telling the whole story.




In those 2 minutes we saw the cops yelling at 2 citizens and telling them they are about to violate the citizen's civil rights.
We saw a citizen ask the cops for a warrant.
We saw the tyrant cops enter a citizens homes with force and without a warrant.
We saw cops committing acts of violence against 2 citizens.
We saw cops violating citizen's civil rights.

[Gaffer]

In those 2 minutes we saw the cops yelling at 2 citizens and telling them they are about to violate the citizen's civil rights.
We saw a citizen ask the cops for a warrant.
We saw the tyrant cops enter a citizens homes with force and without a warrant.
We saw cops committing acts of violence against 2 citizens.
We saw cops violating citizen's civil rights.

We saw a two minute video of cops doing their job. We saw nothing of what went on 10 minutes before or ten minutes after the video.

[BillyBob]

We saw a two minute video of cops doing their job. We saw nothing of what went on 10 minutes before or ten minutes after the video.

We saw a 2 minute video of cops violating multiple civil rights.

[Gaffer]

We saw a 2 minute video of cops violating multiple civil rights.

So every time a criminal is arrested their civil rights are violated?

I guess we should let everyone run wild and commit robbery, rape, murder and anything else they want because to stop them would be a violation of their civil rights?

The whole story has yet to come out. But you have jumped to the conclusion that these are nazi cops. Assume much?

[aboutime]

So every time a criminal is arrested their civil rights are violated?

I guess we should let everyone run wild and commit robbery, rape, murder and anything else they want because to stop them would be a violation of their civil rights?

The whole story has yet to come out. But you have jumped to the conclusion that these are nazi cops. Assume much?


Gaffer. It is impossible to convince a COP HATER to listen to you, or be reasonable. It's just not gonna happen.

[BillyBob]

So every time a criminal is arrested their civil rights are violated?

I guess we should let everyone run wild and commit robbery, rape, murder and anything else they want because to stop them would be a violation of their civil rights?



Nope, I neither said nor implied that. Why can't people around here respond to what others actually 'say' instead of interjecting a bunch of falsehoods?

I've posted at a lot of forums but I've never been to one where this sort of thing was the norm like it is here. Why do you suppose that is?

[BillyBob]

Gaffer. It is impossible to convince a COP HATER to listen to you, or be reasonable. It's just not gonna happen.


Nope, I neither said nor implied that. Why can't people around here respond to what others actually 'say' instead of interjecting a bunch of falsehoods?

I've posted at a lot of forums but I've never been to one where this sort of thing was the norm like it is here. Why do you suppose that is?

[tailfins]

Exactly the way I felt when I heard it Marcus, but then again. That is more TRUE than those who complain so much about cops want, or wish to hear, or read. The truth always hurts the most for those who ignore, or break the laws.

When is the last time you drove 60 MPH in a 55 MPH zone?

[aboutime]

When is the last time you drove 60 MPH in a 55 MPH zone?

Let's see. I guess, about 15 years ago. Physically, I am unable to drive. And your point...telling me I broke the law...proves what for you?

[Gaffer]

Nope, I neither said nor implied that. Why can't people around here respond to what others actually 'say' instead of interjecting a bunch of falsehoods?

I've posted at a lot of forums but I've never been to one where this sort of thing was the norm like it is here. Why do you suppose that is?

I asked two questions. You failed to answer them.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Nope, I neither said nor implied that. Why can't people around here respond to what others actually 'say' instead of interjecting a bunch of falsehoods?

I've posted at a lot of forums but I've never been to one where this sort of thing was the norm like it is here. Why do you suppose that is?

practice what you preach, dumb ass.

[taft2012]

I've seen more than enough here, and there's little point in arguing with someone who sticks their fingers in their ears and screams "LA! LA! LA! I can't hear you!"

So FJ will be having some company in my own DP.com E-Toilet.

FLUSH!

[Voted4Reagan]

looks like the guy filming intentionally tried to provoke the police.

The police have a job to do and dont need a warrant when investigating a DV Complaint due to the possibility of danger to someone in the residence.

Something wasnt quite right with the video...

[Missileman]

dont need a warrant when investigating a DV Complaint due to the possibility of danger to someone in the residence.

That's not what the law says. There has to be an emergency and/or exigent circumstances to go without a warrant. It's been posted several times in this thread.

It does appear that the Cotati PD has a unique way to assist a woman they were supposedly protecting from violent attack. Think of all the taxpayer dollars that can be saved and all of the other important law enforcement issues that could be attended to if they simply cut out the middle man(cops) and issued a taser to all the husbands in Cali. :rolleyes:

[BillyBob]

practice what you preach, dumb ass.


Thanks for proving my point.

[jimnyc]

It does appear that the Cotati PD has a unique way to assist a woman they were supposedly protecting from violent attack. Think of all the taxpayer dollars that can be saved and all of the other important law enforcement issues that could be attended to if they simply cut out the middle man(cops) and issued a taser to all the husbands in Cali. :rolleyes:

Who said they were protecting a woman from a violent attack? For all anyone knows, and the police, it could have been the husband in harm, or worse, the kids. Just another reason why they need to investigate.

[WiccanLiberal]

That's not what the law says. There has to be an emergency and/or exigent circumstances to go without a warrant. It's been posted several times in this thread.

It does appear that the Cotati PD has a unique way to assist a woman they were supposedly protecting from violent attack. Think of all the taxpayer dollars that can be saved and all of the other important law enforcement issues that could be attended to if they simply cut out the middle man(cops) and issued a taser to all the husbands in Cali. :rolleyes:
Again you are making an assumption. Domestic violence is not strictly male on female, nor are all the relationships opposite sex ones. Men get abused as well, albeit at a lower rate. Also, it is a not unheard of thing for the abused to suddenly change their mind about a complaint and attack the police. I repeat, nobody here knows the entire circumstance surrounding the incident so it has become a focus for speculation. So since we are all speculating, how do the police know the couple shown were the only people in the house? Potential danger to someone unseen on the premises constitutes sufficient need to visually inspect the house. Society insists police be proactive in their investigation of potential domestic violence.

[Missileman]

Again you are making an assumption. Domestic violence is not strictly male on female, nor are all the relationships opposite sex ones. Men get abused as well, albeit at a lower rate. Also, it is a not unheard of thing for the abused to suddenly change their mind about a complaint and attack the police. I repeat, nobody here knows the entire circumstance surrounding the incident so it has become a focus for speculation. So since we are all speculating, how do the police know the couple shown were the only people in the house? Potential danger to someone unseen on the premises constitutes sufficient need to visually inspect the house. Society insists police be proactive in their investigation of potential domestic violence.

There's potential danger to someone "unseen" in EVERY house the cops pass by as they patrol the neighborhood, so that dog don't hunt.

[Missileman]

Who said they were protecting a woman from a violent attack? For all anyone knows, and the police, it could have been the husband in harm, or worse, the kids. Just another reason why they need to investigate.

A loud argument (which is what the neighbor reported btw) doesn't constitute DV. The cops aren't allowed to "assume" there's an emergency or exigent circumstance, they have to observe or "reasonably suspect" there is. If that burden hasn't been met and the cops wish to investigate further they need a warrant. I'll keep repeating as much as long as you guys keep denying that's what the law says.

[aboutime]

No wonder this nation has become so SCREWED-UP. Too many people have decided to ignore, and avoid observing our laws because of their bad, sad, miserable experiences they bring here and expect others to believe...because THEY SAID SO!

[jimnyc]

A loud argument (which is what the neighbor reported btw) doesn't constitute DV. The cops aren't allowed to "assume" there's an emergency or exigent circumstance, they have to observe or "reasonably suspect" there is. If that burden hasn't been met and the cops wish to investigate further they need a warrant. I'll keep repeating as much as long as you guys keep denying that's what the law says.

Not once have I "denied" what you stated about the law. I agree with what you wrote above but I believe the burden was met, and easily so when the occupants inside became combative with the police and refused to speak with them about the call they received. They MUST investigate and MUST ensure the safety of everyone inside. Both these people, and you, fail to understand that they HAD to make sure of these things.

Oh, and you can repeat something forever. But if you say I outright claim the law doesn't say that - how about actually quoting where I said as much?

[Missileman]

Not once have I "denied" what you stated about the law. I agree with what you wrote above but I believe the burden was met, and easily so when the occupants inside became combative with the police and refused to speak with them about the call they received. They MUST investigate and MUST ensure the safety of everyone inside. Both these people, and you, fail to understand that they HAD to make sure of these things.

Oh, and you can repeat something forever. But if you say I outright claim the law doesn't say that - how about actually quoting where I said as much?

Exigent circumstanceMain article: Exigent circumstance in United States law (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law)
There are also "exigent circumstances" exceptions to the warrant requirement. Exigent circumstances arise when the law enforcement officers have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an immediate need to protect their lives, the lives of others, their property, or that of others, the search is not motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence, and there is some reasonable basis, to associate an emergency with the area or place to be searched.[70] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-70)


There wasn't anything on that video that could pass for exigent circumstance. They were talking to the cops, they were refusing to leave their house to do so. The video contained no agressive movements or statements prior to the cops entry. Combative, my ass!

And, if that's not enough, the bolded part is the real kicker. When they kicked in the door, they were indeed intending to arrest.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Exigent circumstance

Main article: Exigent circumstance in United States law (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law)
There are also "exigent circumstances" exceptions to the warrant requirement. Exigent circumstances arise when the law enforcement officers have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an immediate need to protect their lives, the lives of others, their property, or that of others, the search is not motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence, and there is some reasonable basis, to associate an emergency with the area or place to be searched.[70] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-70)


There wasn't anything on that video that could pass for exigent circumstance. They were talking to the cops, they were refusing to leave their house to do so. The video contained no agressive movements or statements prior to the cops entry. Combative, my ass!

And, if that's not enough, the bolded part is the real kicker. When they kicked in the door, they were indeed intending to arrest.


the search is not motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence

A... what search?
B... it says 'arrest AND seize evidence'... you ignored half the comment. why?

[Missileman]

A... what search?
B... it says 'arrest AND seize evidence'... you ignored half the comment. why?

A. The search for the imaginary other person(s) in danger in the house?

B. It's irrelevant, but you can include it if you want and throw the guy's cell phone/camera in the evidence bag.

[jimnyc]

Exigent circumstance

Main article: Exigent circumstance in United States law (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law)
There are also "exigent circumstances" exceptions to the warrant requirement. Exigent circumstances arise when the law enforcement officers have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an immediate need to protect their lives, the lives of others, their property, or that of others, the search is not motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence, and there is some reasonable basis, to associate an emergency with the area or place to be searched.[70] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-70)


There wasn't anything on that video that could pass for exigent circumstance. They were talking to the cops, they were refusing to leave their house to do so. The video contained no agressive movements or statements prior to the cops entry. Combative, my ass!

And, if that's not enough, the bolded part is the real kicker. When they kicked in the door, they were indeed intending to arrest.

I think their intent to arrest came after the people refused to cooperate and were impeding the officers investigation. The call alone gave them reason to believe something was going on within the home, then their refusal to cooperate or come out and clear things up ramped it up another notch.

Considering you didn't address the other portion of my post, I'll assume you concede that I never denied the law which you wrote and that portion was written up fantasy. :)

[Missileman]

I think their intent to arrest came after the people refused to cooperate and were impeding the officers investigation. The call alone gave them reason to believe something was going on within the home, then their refusal to cooperate or come out and clear things up ramped it up another notch.

Regardless, exigent circumstance didn't exist.


Considering you didn't address the other portion of my post, I'll assume you concede that I never denied the law which you wrote and that portion was written up fantasy. :)

Yeah, deny was the wrong word...willfully disregard is more accurate.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Regardless, exigent circumstance didn't exist.





as has been pointed out to you, you don't get to make that determination... the officers on the scene do.

[Missileman]

as has been pointed out to you, you don't get to make that determination... the officers on the scene do.

And as has been pointed out, cops aren't always right. Exigent circumstance doesn't exist just because the cops are called, otherwise they'd NEVER need a warrant.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=639835#post639835)
as has been pointed out to you, you don't get to make that determination... the officers on the scene do.



And as has been pointed out, cops aren't always right. Exigent circumstance doesn't exist just because the cops are called, otherwise they'd NEVER need a warrant.

which of you is right isn't my point. my point is that you, not being present, do not get to determine if the exigent circumstances existed. The cops, being there, do. If it goes to court and they are judged incorrect, so be it. But the initial determination is theirs to make, not yours as an armchair internet lawyer.

[Missileman]

which of you is right isn't my point. my point is that you, not being present, do not get to determine if the exigent circumstances existed. The cops, being there, do. If it goes to court and they are judged incorrect, so be it. But the initial determination is theirs to make, not yours as an armchair internet lawyer.

All I've ever said is that there was no exigent circumstance (based on the legal definition) evident on the video.

[Marcus Aurelius]

All I've ever said is that there was no exigent circumstance (based on the legal definition) evident on the video.

And I said YOU do not get to make that determination... the officers on the scene do... ESPECIALLY when all YOU have to work with is a 2 minute video. Their call, not yours.

[jimnyc]

Regardless, exigent circumstance didn't exist.



Yeah, deny was the wrong word...willfully disregard is more accurate.

Willfully disregard? How about I just see things differently? You can't disagree without making stuff up about the other person or trying to put them down somehow? Even legal analysts are divided over the actions here. So I suppose each analyst that feels it was within their rights, they are ALL willfully ignoring the law?

I won't take your bait. I'll just say that I stand by my original words. If you need to take cheap shots, make up claims and such, so be it. I'm not going to get into a shitting contest with someone because they can't handle that I see things differently.

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont like how the domestic laws are written.

in california, someone must be arrested.

instead of letting the police sort it out

and 9 times out of ten I believe the police are going to side with the woman

because our culture acts *for a lot of people and the most part* as if men are always the aggresor and women are always the victim

pisses me off deeply

[logroller]

Has anybody posted the video of the Temple Texas guy who was arrested for interfering with a police officer...
http://youtu.be/j-0MX2PLjuk
http://youtu.be/j-0MX2PLjuk
Curious to see how this plays out.