Love this - Bully Cops shut-down

[darin]

After two cops attempted to enter his home without a warrant, Avel Amarel stands up for his rights and sends them away.



Aint playin' no fuckin' games in this mutherfucker....

http://www.infowars.com/man-stands-up-for-constitution-as-police-demand-to-enter-home-without-warrant/


Now - I dunno about his 3-forms of ID per Supreme Court or whatever...but GOOD on the man for doing the right thing.

[NightTrain]

He handled that very well.

3 forms of ID? I think that's bogus, but it did give the cops pause and they didn't know for sure if he was right or not.

I'm pretty sure that if he hadn't been recording that incident that he would have been manhandled and his house searched at the very least.

[Gaffer]

If I were one of those cops I would continue searching the neighborhood and have a supervisor call in for a warrant. Then go back and search the house. Legally they could not enter without a warrant or his permission, they knew that as he did. The cops should have asked more follow up questions like, did you see him leave, which way was he going? Did you see how he was dressed? Why don't you want to cooperate? They can ask questions without a warrant and he can refuse to answer. But it raises a lot of suspicion.

[darin]

I almost never cooperate with cops I think are being bullies. Their approach is the key to the whole thing.

[SassyLady]

I almost never cooperate with cops I think are being bullies. Their approach is the key to the whole thing.

Wow ... darin ... you've been in that many situations with the cops to say I almost never cooperate?

[Redrose]

After two cops attempted to enter his home without a warrant, Avel Amarel stands up for his rights and sends them away.




http://www.infowars.com/man-stands-up-for-constitution-as-police-demand-to-enter-home-without-warrant/


Now - I dunno about his 3-forms of ID per Supreme Court or whatever...but GOOD on the man for doing the right thing.

They were not bully cops. There are exceptions to needing a warrant, if the police have probable cause. In this case if they reasonably believed the felon is in the home, either by witnessing it themselves or testimony from a reliable source. The police indicated they were informed the felon was being harbored in that home. The police could have legally entered without his permission, but handled the situation well.

Think about it, if the cops came to my door and asked to enter because a felon was reported to be in my house, I'd let them in. If I have nothing to hide, why not, the felon could be hiding in my home unbeknownst to me. But if I'm really hiding someone, I'd play hardball with the cops. By the time they get a warrant, the felon could be long gone.

[darin]

They were not bully cops. There are exceptions to needing a warrant, if the police have probable cause. In this case if they reasonably believed the felon is in the home, either by witnessing it themselves or testimony from a reliable source. The police indicated they were informed the felon was being harbored in that home. The police could have legally entered without his permission, but handled the situation well.

They attempted to BULLY the guy into letting them in.



Think about it, if the cops came to my door and asked to enter because a felon was reported to be in my house, I'd let them in. If I have nothing to hide, why not, the felon could be hiding in my home unbeknownst to me. But if I'm really hiding someone, I'd play hardball with the cops. By the time they get a warrant, the felon could be long gone.

You do not care about Liberty or Freedom. That's your choice.

[jimnyc]

They did in fact act in a bullying manner. BUT, Redrose is correct, legally speaking. If they have reason to believe (witness) that a wanted felon entered the premises, technically they could go after him. But I think they made that part up, or they would have in fact went in, or blocked the entrances until they did get a warrant. Sounded like they were blowing steam in the hopes of getting easier entry and doing a cursory search of homes nearby.

Similar happened in Boston but on a much larger degree, when Tsarnaev was on the loose after the shooting overnight. They went home to home where they thought he was and did quick searches. But that was EVERY house in an area with no one seeing him enter any particular home.

[Gunny]

I actually agree with both, so it's depend on if I was in a dmp mood, or a redrose mood. :)

[darin]

They did in fact act in a bullying manner. BUT, Redrose is correct, legally speaking. If they have reason to believe (witness) that a wanted felon entered the premises, technically they could go after him. But I think they made that part up, or they would have in fact went in, or blocked the entrances until they did get a warrant. Sounded like they were blowing steam in the hopes of getting easier entry and doing a cursory search of homes nearby.

Any caselaw or other evidence they could enter a resident under reasonable belief? As far as I know the only except is if they have reason to believe evidence is being or will be destroyed, or if they are physically chasing somebody and the suspect runs into a house. But as far as walking around knocking on doors without probably cause...I dunno.



Similar happened in Boston but on a much larger degree, when Tsarnaev was on the loose after the shooting overnight. They went home to home where they thought he was and did quick searches. But that was EVERY house in an area with no one seeing him enter any particular home.

I'd not have followed their requests had I lived in the affected area.

[Gunny]

Any caselaw or other evidence they could enter a resident under reasonable belief?



I'd not have followed their requests had I lived in the affected area.

I'm not sure what actual legal precedent is, and I imagine the laws is different in each state. I do not believe they are right from a legal standpoint to blanket search a neighborhood. If they are in pursuit of a criminal and they see him enter a residence they can go after him here.

And you don't argue with cops here. That's just how it is.

[jimnyc]

Any caselaw or other evidence they could enter a resident under reasonable belief? As far as I know the only except is if they have reason to believe evidence is being or will be destroyed, or if they are physically chasing somebody and the suspect runs into a house. But as far as walking around knocking on doors without probably cause...I dunno.



I'd not have followed their requests had I lived in the affected area.

It's not reasonable belief but rather probable cause that they would argue. And with this probable cause, they are ONLY allowed to do a cursory search for the wanted person, nothing else would even be remotely allowed as any type of evidence. IF it were fought, brought to court, all the police need are the following:


"a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true"

If they can articulate that, no warrant is needed. That's directly from the Supreme Court. There ARE "exceptions" to needing a warrant. That's why the exceptions in Mass weren't fought and nothing done by the mass complaining, as it was fully legal, although many of us may not like it.

[jimnyc]

Just did a search based on our discussions in Mass, here's a decent article about the subject. Granted, this is MUCH different, but it shows that exceptions can be made. Whether this qualifies would be up to a court, but since they never entered, and the owner never gave permission...

---

SWAT teams descended on the Boston suburb of Watertown on Friday morning to conduct a door-to-door search for the Boston Marathon bombing suspect left alive after a convenience store robbery, car chase, and shootout Thursday night. Is it legal for the police to search your house without a warrant?

It can be. Under the Fourth Amendment, a judge issues a warrant if police can demonstrate that a search is “reasonable”—that there is “probable cause” to investigate a house, car, or backyard for evidence. But there are plenty of circumstances under which police can perform searches without invoking probable cause.

If you consent to a police search, officers do not need a warrant to enter your home. If you have a housemate, he or she can allow the police to rummage through common areas, such as the living room or the kitchen, but not private areas, such as your closet or bedroom.

In exigent circumstances, or emergency situations, police can conduct warrantless searches to protect public safety. This exception to the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement normally addresses situations of “hot pursuit,” in which an escaping suspect is tracked to a private home. But it might also apply to the events unfolding in Boston if further harm or injury might be supposed to occur in the time it takes to secure a warrant. A bomber believed to be armed and planning more violence would almost certainly meet such prerequisites.

Furthermore, police may enter a private residence to provide emergency assistance to an occupant—which may include apprehending a suspected terrorist who also happens to be inside. And if they plan to make an arrest in someone’s home, they can undertake a “protective sweep” of the dwelling first to confirm that no weapons or accomplices are stashed away where they can do damage later.

Should these justifications fail, the police could also just conduct a search that violates the Fourth Amendment, knowing that whatever evidence they turn up might not be admissible in court. If their first priority is securing public safety, such a bargain doesn’t seem too awful.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2013/04/boston_bomber_manhunt_is_the_watertown_door_to_doo r_search_by_police_for.html

[darin]

Based on the above I stand by my comment - I would have not allowed police into my house. :)

[jimnyc]

Based on the above I stand by my comment - I would have not allowed police into my house. :)

Me neither, and I wouldn't have been so patient - I would have said get a warrant and slammed the door shut!

[tailfins]

Me neither, and I wouldn't have been so patient - I would have said get a warrant and slammed the door shut!

Sometimes a New York attitude like yours it what's called for. However, the civil liberties material I have read tells you not to answer the door in the first place.

[Olivia]

They were not bully cops. There are exceptions to needing a warrant, if the police have probable cause. In this case if they reasonably believed the felon is in the home, either by witnessing it themselves or testimony from a reliable source. The police indicated they were informed the felon was being harbored in that home. The police could have legally entered without his permission, but handled the situation well.

Think about it, if the cops came to my door and asked to enter because a felon was reported to be in my house, I'd let them in. If I have nothing to hide, why not, the felon could be hiding in my home unbeknownst to me. But if I'm really hiding someone, I'd play hardball with the cops. By the time they get a warrant, the felon could be long gone.
If they truly felt a felon was being harbor end they could have surrounded the house and waited for their warrant. The way they went about it was incorrect.

[Gaffer]

It was never said what the outcome of all this was. But, as I said, before, they can back off, watch the house and have a supervisor call in for a warrant. It wouldn't take long, then give the place a good thorough searching.

Listening to this guy talk tells me he's seen the inside of the county jail a time or two and thinks himself a jail house lawyer. His plans for a lawsuit got dashed when they backed off.

[Baba Booey]

Am I the only one around here who thinks infowars is a completely hack site?

Probably, but I figured I'd ask anyway.

[tailfins]

Am I the only one around here who thinks infowars is a completely hack site?

Probably, but I figured I'd ask anyway.

Sure, they have more BS than a cattle drive. However they give interesting points to ponder and investigate further with reliable sources.

[NightTrain]

It was never said what the outcome of all this was. But, as I said, before, they can back off, watch the house and have a supervisor call in for a warrant. It wouldn't take long, then give the place a good thorough searching.

Listening to this guy talk tells me he's seen the inside of the county jail a time or two and thinks himself a jail house lawyer. His plans for a lawsuit got dashed when they backed off.

Down in the comments section there was a link to the guy's record... I didn't go look, but the commenter said he'd been in the slammer more than a few times. That explained his attitude and unwillingness to let the cops into his house.

[NightTrain]

Am I the only one around here who thinks infowars is a completely hack site?

Probably, but I figured I'd ask anyway.


Alex Jones is a paranoid conspiracy nut, but every now and then they do turn up something that others missed.

[darin]

Alex Jones is a paranoid conspiracy nut, but every now and then they do turn up something that others missed.

The source of info doesn't impact the validity of info. What Jones does is the same as other media; they interpret information from their paradigm. :)

[NightTrain]

The source of info doesn't impact the validity of info. What Jones does is the same as other media; they interpret information from their paradigm. :)

Yes.

However, when I use Infowars as a source, I'm pretty cautious and research their research. Seems to me they're Truthers... if I remember correctly.

[Baba Booey]

The source of info doesn't impact the validity of info. What Jones does is the same as other media; they interpret information from their paradigm. :)

Here's the danger, these guys thrive off of scaring the shit out of everyone else - because it sells commercial ads.

For shit like Life Alert, etc.

The question that needs asked is "is this a fringe occurrence or the norm"?

Or just turn the volume up and enjoy the programming.

http://blog.codinghorror.com/content/images/uploads/2007/01/6a0120a85dcdae970b0128777001ac970c-pi.jpg

[darin]

Here's the danger, these guys thrive off of scaring the shit out of everyone else - because it sells commercial ads.

For shit like Life Alert, etc.

The question that needs asked is "is this a fringe occurrence or the norm"?

Or just turn the volume up and enjoy the programming.



Doesn't matter. It's not the fault of Jones, etc. It's a fundamental problem with humans and there is no hope. Idiocracy? That will happen because that's what people want see also: Everyone who voted for liberal/socialist leaders.


Dwayne Elizondo Camacho …Five-time Ultimate Smackdown champion …Porn superstar …And president of the United States

[Gaffer]

Down in the comments section there was a link to the guy's record... I didn't go look, but the commenter said he'd been in the slammer more than a few times. That explained his attitude and unwillingness to let the cops into his house.

Just listening to him told me all I needed to know about him. I'm sure the cops recognized this as well. They knew what he was up to and backed off. Would be interesting to know the outcome of all this. Did they catch the guy they were after? Did this guy filming get busted for harboring a fugitive?