|
Lemming posted:That situation seems incredibly hosed up. How could you even theoretically cooperate? A guy shows up at your house at 3:30 am, claims to be a cop but says he's looking for someone that doesn't live there, you tell him to come back with a warrant, then he kicks the door in and starts attacking you. Fighting back doesn't seem unreasonable at all. Civilians just need to listen any time someone says they're a cop and do everything they say. Doesn't matter if they're breaking down doors at 3:30 AM looking for someone who doesn't live there and attacking people inside, just accept that they're definitely a legit police officer acting with authority and file a complaint later!
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:00 |
|
|
quote:According to authorities, “a confrontation with an individual resulted in a shooting.” There's that passive language we've grown to love. A shooting just magically happened, it was no one's fault really.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Lemming posted:That situation seems incredibly hosed up. How could you even theoretically cooperate? A guy shows up at your house at 3:30 am, claims to be a cop but says he's looking for someone that doesn't live there, you tell him to come back with a warrant, then he kicks the door in and starts attacking you. Fighting back doesn't seem unreasonable at all. If the report is accurate then it sounds like he was justified in using self-defense against the illegal home invasion, not sure it was the smartest move, but I probably would have done the same thing. I am confused as to exactly how the fight went down though because the witnesses they're quoting aren't very clear. like for example it makes it sound like the officer rolled off him and shot him on the ground but the bullet holes are in the wall.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
when i hear "officer involved shooting" i always imagine a shadowy third party picking up the officer and aiming him at the victim and making pew pew noises
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Can someone find an instance of a civilian shooting a cop or another civilian where the "authorities" use passive language like that? I'm curious how long it'd take to find one
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
I'd love a representative for the police, a prosecutor, or even a SCOTUS justice having to answer what a person should do if someone claiming to be cop requests entry to his or her home and when unable to show a warrant destroys the door then enters violently. It's pretty much a gamble at this point that is 100% on the person that probably has no training in the legal system and is forced to make a split second decision if they should defend themselves with force to avoid being killed by the intruder, or if doing so will get them sent to jail or killed on the spot.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Nov 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Radish posted:I'd love a representative for the police, a prosecutor, or even a SCOTUS justice having to answer what a person should do if someone claiming to be cop requests entry to his or her home and when unable to show a warrant destroys the door then enters violently. It's pretty much a gamble at this point that is 100% on the person that probably has no training in the legal system and is forced to make a split second decision if they should defend themselves with force to avoid being killed by the intruder, or if doing so will get them sent to jail or killed on the spot. Honestly I'm pretty shocked the cops didn't throw him under the bus immediately. They've gotten a but more sensitive to the social climate and the REALLY egregious ones like this without any possible excuse seem to not be defended anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Radish posted:I'd love a representative for the police, a prosecutor, or even a SCOTUS justice having to answer what a person should do if someone claiming to be cop requests entry to his or her home and when unable to show a warrant destroys the door then enters violently. It's pretty much a gamble at this point that is 100% on the person that probably has no training in the legal system and is forced to make a split second decision if they should defend themselves with force to avoid being killed by the intruder, or if doing so will get them sent to jail or killed on the spot. There are tons of legal reasons cops can blow your door down without a warrant. So, yes if a cop busts your door down in the middle of the night after refusing to show a warrant, they're going to say the only legal recourse you have is in the courts. You have to comply with any officer demands no matter how unreasonable or absurd, so long as the order is not forcing you to break the law, you must obey in their eyes because you can't know if the order was actually unlawful because you don't know the officer's state of mind and they don't have to tell you. quote:The first problem is knowing what counts as an “order.” If an officer approaches you and asks you to do something, that’s normally just a request and not an order. But if there’s a law on the books saying that you have to comply with the officer’s request, then the request is treated as an order. You can’t know what is an “order” unless you study the law first, which you’re unlikely to have done before the officer approached you. A Fancy Bloke posted:Honestly I'm pretty shocked the cops didn't throw him under the bus immediately. They've gotten a but more sensitive to the social climate and the REALLY egregious ones like this without any possible excuse seem to not be defended anymore. The victim gained control of a police weapon, this seems like as easy to gloss over as a "good shoot" as any. This ticks the "no angel" checkbox pretty hard. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Nov 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:There are tons of legal reasons cops can blow your door down without a warrant. So, yes if a cop busts your door down in the middle of the night after refusing to show a warrant, they're going to say the only legal recourse you have is in the courts. I'm curious, what reasons? Specifically when the officer stated he was looking for someone who didn't live there, and was told to come back with a warrant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
The point is you have no idea if it is really a police officer or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:I'm curious, what reasons? Specifically when the officer stated he was looking for someone who didn't live there, and was told to come back with a warrant. He thought he heard the sounds of evidence being destroyed, saw what he believed was contraband when they opened the door the first time, was concerned for the mental welfare of the person inside, etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Smelled weed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:Smelled weed. I don't know if that's enough for a house. For a car, it's because of the whole DUI thing, less reason for a personal residence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
None of this matters because the officer lost control of his taser after deploying it. Everything before that moment is not relevant. Good shoot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:If the report is accurate then it sounds like he was justified in using self-defense against the illegal home invasion, not sure it was the smartest move, but I probably would have done the same thing. The officer is pretty hosed though. Not having your home invaded without a warrant is a clearly established right, so unless the deputy had some exigent circumstances that aren't mentioned in the article, he isn't entitled to QI, and self defense isn't available in situations where the defendant is the aggressor or engaged in illegal activity per § 14-51.4.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
They'll just toss a spaghetti bowl of circumstances after the fact and the DA will have his pick of excuses to let another murderer off. Wheel keeps on turnin'
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
An update on that story. http://wncn.com/2015/11/16/deputys-name-released-in-fatal-harnett-co-officer-involved-shooting/ quote:SPRING LAKE, N.C. (WNCN) – The Harnett County Sheriff’s Office has released the name of the deputy involved in Sunday morning’s fatal officer-involved shooting in Spring Lake.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Does she explain why the police are no longer stopping burglaries?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
g0del posted:I don't know. She can simultaneously talk about how police are wonderful, heroic people and the only state employees who deserve their pensions, and then decry them for not doing their jobs and letting her neighbourhood (full of small homes valued at over $1M because Silicon Valley real estate is insane) get overrun with criminals. I generally just change the subject and ask how her garden is doing. Oh okay, I figured this had to have something to with that they're afraid of doing their jobs because of BLM
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:If the report is accurate then it sounds like he was justified in using self-defense against the illegal home invasion, not sure it was the smartest move, but I probably would have done the same thing. From what I can tell, at least one eyewitness says he wasn't fighting back. WNCN posted:Carroll says sheriff’s deputies knocked on their door around 3:30 a.m.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:From what I can tell, at least one eyewitness says he wasn't fighting back. But that same witness said he had the officer's taser in his hand? "Livingston was not fighting back and was trying to get the Taser out of the deputy’s hands" That sounds like fighting back to me...
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But that same witness said he had the officer's taser in his hand? Check out the picture of the guy lying face-down in this gallery. http://interactives.wncn.com/photom...stons-roommate/ Apparently, he is demonstrating with his right hand what was happening at the time. Could just be a case of "Ow, get off me!", but you're right there is no clear indicator either way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
MariusLecter posted:They'll just toss a spaghetti bowl of circumstances after the fact and the DA will have his pick of excuses to let another murderer off. Radish posted:I'd love a representative for the police, a prosecutor, or even a SCOTUS justice having to answer what a person should do if someone claiming to be cop requests entry to his or her home and when unable to show a warrant destroys the door then enters violently. It's pretty much a gamble at this point that is 100% on the person that probably has no training in the legal system and is forced to make a split second decision if they should defend themselves with force to avoid being killed by the intruder, or if doing so will get them sent to jail or killed on the spot. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Nov 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
In what universe is an officer breaking down a door when refused entry without a warrant not unlawful?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:In what universe is an officer breaking down a door when refused entry without a warrant not unlawful? Exigent circumstances may allow entry without a warrant. There's nothing in the articles suggesting any were present, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Of course, the elephant in the room is that if dealing with the police requires a grasp of law citizens cannot reasonably be expected to have, it is extremely difficult to justify police behavior as just, as it carries the basic taint that they may, basically, engage in exploitation of fellow citizens perfectly legally.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Assuming the reporting is accurate, North Carolina criminal statutes forbids use of force in self defense against an announced peace officer executing their lawful duties under § 14-51.2(c)(4), which is a pretty high bar to clear. The homeowner would probably have to show that they knew there was no way that the officer's entry could be lawful. No, he just has to show officer's entry was not lawful, which it doesn't sound like it was. Trabisnikof posted:He thought he heard the sounds of evidence being destroyed, saw what he believed was contraband when they opened the door the first time, was concerned for the mental welfare of the person inside, etc. None of those actually let the police enter your house without a warrant except for the first one, and since they were there looking for a person that would be a hard sell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Exigent circumstances may allow entry without a warrant. There's nothing in the articles suggesting any were present, though. What's the likelihood of the cop being able to convincingly say he sincerely thought otherwise? Good-faith misinterpretation and all that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:None of those actually let the police enter your house without a warrant except for the first one, and since they were there looking for a person that would be a hard sell. Actually, all three are commonly used justifications. Police can and do break down the door to force entry during welfare checks. They then of course can search/seize any contraband they see. E.g: quote:Welfare Checks and the "Emergency Aid" Doctrine: Checking for victims in a residence upon a "reasonable belief" that someone inside a residence is in need of aid, or that there is an imminent threat to the life or welfare of someone inside, an immediate, justifies a warrantless entry. (People v. Ray (1999) 21 Cal.4th 464; Tamborino v. Superior Court (1986) 41 Cal.3rd 919; People v. Ammons (1980) 103 Cal.App.3rd 20.) Plain view doctrine would give police cause to enter without a warrant if they saw contraband through the open doorway when initially refused entry. quote:'Plain View'.—Somewhat similar in rationale is the rule that objects falling in the 'plain view' of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure without a warrant293 or that if the officer needs a warrant or probable cause to search and seize his lawful observation will provide grounds therefor.294 The plain view doctrine is limited, however, by the probable cause requirement: officers must have probable cause to believe that items in plain view are contraband before they may search or seize them.295
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
It's really interesting how the "plain view" doctrine only really works if the public isn't aware of it.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:What's the likelihood of the cop being able to convincingly say he sincerely thought otherwise? Good-faith misinterpretation and all that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Actually, all three are commonly used justifications. Plain view does not give the ability to enter a domicile, the officer must have right of access to where the contraband is as well as a lawful vantage point. You keep phrasing "wellfare check" like they can enter just to see if you're doing swell instead of it being an exception for emergencies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Of course, the elephant in the room is that if dealing with the police requires a grasp of law citizens cannot reasonably be expected to have, it is extremely difficult to justify police behavior as just, as it carries the basic taint that they may, basically, engage in exploitation of fellow citizens perfectly legally. That elephant was killed long ago for resisting arrest. If you become a police person of interest, your best chance of survival is immediate and unconditional submission and even then it's a toss up. War on Drugs has made that notion inapplicable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Plain view does not give the ability to enter a domicile, the officer must have right of access to where the contraband is as well as a lawful vantage point. Unless of course the plain view shows something that might be destroyed, in which case they enter on that exigency. Technically you can't enter merely because you saw something, but in practice you usually can. FAUXTON posted:What's the likelihood of the cop being able to convincingly say he sincerely thought otherwise? Good-faith misinterpretation and all that. Fact dependent and we don't have any facts so no idea. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
We're getting an FBI investigation in Minneapolis. Also, it sounds like none of the footage shows the complete encounter. I hope they release something soon, people are mad as heck.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
Silver Nitrate posted:We're getting an FBI investigation in Minneapolis. Also, it sounds like none of the footage shows the complete encounter. I hope they release something soon, people are mad as heck. I was caught in that traffic shitshow but I'm really glad they did it. I don't know what the x-factor in this case was other than that the protesters organized and demonstrated faster than I've ever seen and the whole city government was caught with their pants down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:That elephant was killed long ago for resisting arrest. If you become a police person of interest, your best chance of survival is immediate and unconditional submission and even then it's a toss up. Don't forget to guess unerringly right that the person breaking down your door at 3am and refusing to show a warrant really is/is not a cop entering under exigent circumstances before you unconditionally submit/defend yourself!
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 13:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Don't forget to guess unerringly right that the person breaking down your door at 3am and refusing to show a warrant really is/is not a cop entering under exigent circumstances before you unconditionally submit/defend yourself! Yeah this is what I was getting at. If someone claiming to be police busts down your door in the middle of the night without a warrant you have two choices: a) Treat that person as a real cop and submit immediately. b) Treat that person as someone pretending to be police trying to attack you and defend yourself with force. There's no real way to know the difference in the small amount of time the encounter takes place especially when the person is groggy from being woken up. Additionally the cop isn't really making a good case they are who they say they are when the person being attacked hasn't committed a crime and there is no warrant; anyone would think that is incredibly suspect. Making the wrong choice means you will have a good chance of being killed, either by the cop or by the home invader. If you kill the cop that busts down your door at best you are in for a huge legal nightmare, at worst you will be incarcerated or killed. Regular people should not have to worry about accidentally attacking a police officer entering their dwelling erroneously (oops the informant told me the wrong address or whatever is not a good excuse) and triggering a lethal response which is why this sort of thing should carry severe punishment for the police that do it. I understand there are situations where a warrant isn't required but this example among other is almost certainly not one of those. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Nov 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
I dislike in these sorts of circumstances how the reasonableness of a homeowner in these situations is regarded as irrelevant; if the officer is deemed to have acted legally, then no matter how reasonable it would be for a person to not trust them, a lack of compliance is indefensible. On the flip side, not only would such an officer in that situation be given a complete pass regardless of how unreasonable or otherwise incompetent they were behaving, but illegal conduct on the part of the officer can be defended as long as the officer had "good intentions" or whatnot, or if the officer believed what they were doing was legal, even if said belief was a pretty boneheaded one. It's annoying to me since I think the question of effectiveness or competence on the part of the actions of law enforcement should be bought up a bit more often in cases such as this, where reasonableness is a factor. Even if the officer here had, say, seen some kind of meth lab inside the house, the correct course of action would have been to get an actual warrant, and maybe bring backup or elect to follow some kind of route that wouldn't leave people dead, instead of deciding it was a great idea to barge into a house, solo, and get in a fistfight with a dude in an unknown tactical situation, due to some fear that the homeowner would be able to destroy all the evidence and then the bad guys would get away. I imagine the officer is going to be able to elude some consequences of his actions by claiming he was in fear for his life or something (hence the emphasis on the dead guy "going for the taser"), and I think it really should be brought up more just how much danger the officer put himself in for no good reason, to undermine the whole idea that such behavior is some sad necessity needed to ensure a functional police force. Plus, as was brought up, if the officer's not punished for this behavior, it undermines a lot of things related to needing warrants or limits on police conduct in general.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:00 |
|
|
Kalman posted:Unless of course the plain view shows something that might be destroyed, in which case they enter on that exigency. Technically you can't enter merely because you saw something, but in practice you usually can. Wouldn't they be required in that instance to detain the person in the house outside and wait for a warrant? I can't remember the name of the case right now but I'll try to look it up later. With how well the domicile is usually protected and the way plain view works I would think "I thought I saw contraband" as a way to bullshit into a house without a warrant wouldn't pass the smell test.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 14:45
|
|