close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Home invasion and beating by Police

Discussion in 'Civil Liberties Issues' started by jdavionic, Mar 21, 2012.

  1. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    33,737
    3,331
    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    The complaint states the Detective added the resisting arrest charge. My question is did the officers agree with that decision? Right now, we do not know that, but it deserves an answer.

    What motion did Smith make that caused the officers to strike him initially? If the answer is none, fine, bad decision on the officers part. They were wrong. We do not have that information, do we? Do you?
     
  2. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    33,737
    3,331
    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    Do you believe that information might be important in providing the totality of circumstances?
     


  3. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    33,737
    3,331
    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    There is not enough information to say.
    The question is what gave the officers the belief they had authority to enter the house.

    Whether it would be unusual for a person to react by being scared and try to retreat would depend on the person and their circumstances. The test is would a reasonable person react that way.
    You have concerns they MAY have acted inappropriately. You're a wuss. The statement should be: If the information in the parts of the complaint published in the linked article are true, the ***holes were way out of line, acted outside their authority and perhaps criminally.

    If the information is false, is there a law against frivolous law suits.
     
  4. jdavionic

    jdavionic NRA Member

    15,022
    2,811
    May 1, 2008
    Uh...okay, we're in agreement, which should have been obvious from my other posts, and I didn't see that as soliciting a response from me. :whistling:
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2012
  5. jdavionic

    jdavionic NRA Member

    15,022
    2,811
    May 1, 2008
    I think any reasonable person would be alarmed by the someone claiming to be police, saying 'this is our guy', and then forcing entry into your house.

    Nice...name calling by a mod. :upeyes: The point is that there is doubt...hence the word "MAY". Obviously if I knew for certain that they beat this young man as alleged in the lawsuit (for example), then yes...they behaved as criminals, which is despicable and should be punished...as I cited in the OP. Same is true if they invaded his house outside the law.

    Unlike what we've seen in the Tayvon case, I'm not willing to declare that they did or did not act inappropriately without seeing more facts in the case. If you deem that a "wuss", then you have issues.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2012
  6. jdavionic

    jdavionic NRA Member

    15,022
    2,811
    May 1, 2008
    Yes, it might be. Do you have information as to when he got medical attention?
     
  7. jdavionic

    jdavionic NRA Member

    15,022
    2,811
    May 1, 2008
    All we know is what the suspect alleges his actions were...which was to retreat after they made a forcible entry. Note, I'm not saying what the lawsuit cites is factual or not. Just saying that all we know on that question is that the suspect has made an allegation regarding how the events happened.

    This gets into the other post on the same subject...to some extent. Putting that aside (since there is a separate thread and we're discussing civil rights here), I don't know what the law says in the case of police making entry into a home without a warrant in a situation like this one where they believe they have identified a suspect. I would think they'd still need to get a warrant, but I don't know that for certain.

    Again...is it unreasonable for a person to retreat given the circumstances? Whether or not he retreated immediately or pushed back on the door, does it matter...in other words, in either case...would entry still be a violation of his rights? I asked this questions earlier.

    I would have thought these posts would be clear to most people. However you seem hell bent on some personal attack, so I don't know any other way to respond other than to repost what I've already said -
    ...clearly indicating that at least I don't have all the information here.

    and another one...
    another...
    and I could add more by the answers to your other questions as well.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2012
  8. jdavionic

    jdavionic NRA Member

    15,022
    2,811
    May 1, 2008
    Obviously if the allegations are true, the actions of the police here are despicable. And as I've already said, we don't know that's the case.

    Putting that aside, consider this. Let's say that Smith stole those cell phones and the detective knows it. I'm not saying that's true...just a possible hypothetical to focus on one aspect.

    So the detective and officers know Mr. Smith stole the cell phones, they approach his house...knock on his door...Smith opens, and the detective immediately recognizes him as 'the guy'. Whether the guy resists or not, they enter the house, arrest Mr. Smith, and confiscate cell phones. Violation of Mr. Smith's 4th Amendment rights or not?

    Even if they saw a box of stolen cell phones sitting on his coffee table, wouldn't they simply use this observation as "probable cause" in getting a warrant? Or are there some actions / conditions that would allow them to enter his home anyway, arrest him, and conduct the search?
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2012
  9. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    33,737
    3,331
    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    Hypothetically, if the detective knows Smith stole the phones, has proof he stole the phones, why would he not obtain the warrant.

    Your hypothetical is not similar enough to the actual event. You added an absolute not in the original.

    You are still fishing for someone to say absolutely that the police officers involved in the story you posted are guilty of violating the civil rights of Mr. Smith based on the "facts" you presented. You've agreed that we do not have all the facts. Absent those facts, you are not going to get anyone in law enforcement to give you that absolute affirmation you are seeking.
     
  10. jdavionic

    jdavionic NRA Member

    15,022
    2,811
    May 1, 2008
    No sir, you're incorrect. I'm "fishing" to see if there are conditions / situations where police can enter a person's home without a warrant if a person has acted as I outlined. For example, a traffic stop and officers see drugs in the vehicle...they can and do make an arrest. I don't know if some states have a similar method of handling a similar situation like the one that Mr. Smith was involved. In other words, IF police confirm that a person is in the home that police are seeking for a crime and the suspect has opened the door, can the police give chase into the home? IF police see stolen property and the chief suspect in a home and the suspect opens the door and then tries to flee, can the police enter the home in pursuit?

    If the answers are "yes", then this is a possible explanation and another fact to consider when assessing whether they acted appropriately. If the answers are "no, you must have warrant", then I would not see any way where the police acted appropriately with respect to entering the home.
     
  11. jdavionic

    jdavionic NRA Member

    15,022
    2,811
    May 1, 2008
    Funny, I found this article on LegalZoom.com. It touches on what I was getting at.
    http://www.legalzoom.com/everyday-law/home-leisure/can-police-search-your

    According to the article, there are 4 circumstances where no warrant is required:
    1. Consent - the person in control of the property grants consent to search the premises.

    2. Plain view - this is why I was mentioning the possibility that perhaps they could see evidence of the crime.

    3. Search incident to arrest - not sure this one applies here. The police arrived at the home to investigate a crime. At least according to the lawsuit, they did not arrive to arrest Mr. Smith (although that was the result).

    4. Exigent circumstances - where evidence could be destroyed or public danger could be a concern if they do not immediately enter. I don't see this being applicable here.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2012
  12. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    33,737
    3,331
    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    You've answered your own question.
     
  13. jdavionic

    jdavionic NRA Member

    15,022
    2,811
    May 1, 2008
    Yes.

    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
     
  14. jdavionic

    jdavionic NRA Member

    15,022
    2,811
    May 1, 2008
    Yes it is. Perhaps this is common knowledge for many people, but it was news to me. I had a suspicion, which I eluded to earlier. But I didn't know for certain.

    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
     
  15. Mister_Beefy

    Mister_Beefy Legal & Proper

    2,417
    0
    Apr 19, 2011
    I know that's not a straw man argument.

    I was anticipating the inevitable straw man argument claim that I always receive, but is never substantiated.


    page 195 of bren's "internet forum rule book"?

    ah, so you agree with me.

    very good.


    had he agreed with me, he would have said something like "you are correct, police misconduct happens every day"

    then possibly added something like

    "and we do everything we can to combat it and bring those perpetrators to justice."

    but no, he said

    "What makes what you said untrue is that you have no direct knowledge of police and their conduct, so you have no basis for your statement."



    truth you disagree with turns into trolling with a wave of your moderator wand.

    heh, so if I say anything on an internet forum, I have to prove it with verifiable accounts from a court of record.

    got it. :rofl:
     
  16. Kingarthurhk

    Kingarthurhk Isaiah 53:4-9

    8,162
    171
    Sep 5, 2010
    Texas
    Mr. Beefy, you are to law enforcement as Norske is to religion.

    It might be easier if you just developed a macro to copy paste that LEO's are bad repeatedly, and never even have to enjoin the topic.

    It is about all you add to such topics anyway.
     
  17. Mister_Beefy

    Mister_Beefy Legal & Proper

    2,417
    0
    Apr 19, 2011
    oh really?

    that's the most pertinint thing you have to say, eh?

    sounds so familiar.......

    oh yeah, I remember!


     
  18. OldCurlyWolf

    OldCurlyWolf

    767
    7
    Aug 7, 2010
    Not to be the grammar police but this one tickled my funny bone.

    How did you escape your suspicion??:rofl:

    I believe the actual word you wanted was the word "Alluded", not "Eluded".

    :faint:
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2012
  19. jdavionic

    jdavionic NRA Member

    15,022
    2,811
    May 1, 2008
    :rofl: Okay, it was not easy. That is funny. Busted.