50512
Post by: Jihadin
A Nevada family is using a rare legal argument in a lawsuit claiming police tried to commandeer their homes for a surveillance operation and then arrested the homeowners for resisting -- invoking the Third Amendment, which bars soldiers from being "quartered" in a residence without permission.
The Mitchell family, in a lawsuit filed July 1, detailed the incident from July 10, 2011. According to the complaint, it all began when the Henderson city police called Anthony Mitchell that morning to say they needed his house to gain “tactical advantage” in a domestic violence investigation in the neighborhood.
The situation turned ugly when Mitchell refused repeated requests to leave and police smashed through the door, the 18-page complaint states.
Mitchell alleges the police, upon entering his home, forced him to the floor at gunpoint, then shot him and his “cowering” dog with a few rounds of pepper-spray pellets. Police then allegedly handcuffed and arrested Mitchell in connection with “obstructing a police officer” before occupying his home.
It didn’t end at Anthony Mitchell’s house in suburban Las Vegas, the complaint continues. That same day, the officers also took over the home of Mitchell’s parents, Linda and Michael Mitchell, who live in the same neighborhood and are named as plaintiffs.
The police department declined Monday to comment on the case when reached by FoxNews.com, leaving the matter to the court should the case go to trial.
However, the more compelling questions appear to focus on whether the Third Amendment strategy can work, considering the courts would have to consider the police officers as soldiers.
The amendment states: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
“I’m confident the Mitchells have a good case,” said Frank Cofer, a partner in the firm Cofer, Geller & Durham LLC representing the plaintiffs.
Cofer told FoxNews.com that what struck him about the case was the officers’ use of military-style tactics.
“And after entering the houses, they drank water, ate food, enjoyed the air conditioning,” he said. “That struck me as quartering.”
The suit alleges that, at the parents' house, police lured Michael Mitchell from his home to a nearby “command center” by saying they needed him to get the neighbor involved in the domestic violence case to surrender. When officers began to backpedal, Mitchell eventually attempted to leave, which resulted in him being handcuffed and eventually charged with obstructing an officer.
Police then returned to Mitchells' house where they allegedly yanked wife Linda from the premises after she refused to let them in without a warrant.
She was not arrested, and police have dropped all charges against the family.
However, the Mitchells are still suing for an undisclosed sum, saying their rights as citizens were violated under the Third Amendment -- as well as the Fourth and 14th amendments -- and that the incident resulted in physical injury, malicious destruction of property and “extreme emotional distress.”
Anthony and Michael also had to pay a bond to secure their release, the suit alleges.
John Yoo, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley’s law school, wasn't so sure about the family's argument. He said the Mitchells may have claims under other federal and state laws “but their chances are very, very low on the Third Amendment.”
Yoo, a visiting scholar for the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute and former Justice Department official, told FoxNews.com the most difficult challenge for them is that there were no "soldiers" in their house, before the court gets into the question of whether "quartering" occurred.
“Local police on law enforcement missions are not soldiers,” he said. But “Nevada should compensate the Mitchells’ for the temporary use of their home and for any damages caused in the operation.”
Among those named in the suit are the city of Henderson, the city police department, the police chief, five officers and the North Las Vegas Police Department.
The suit also alleges both police departments “developed and maintained policies and/or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the Constitutional rights of United States citizens, which caused the violations of the plaintiffs’ rights.”
I'm going to follow this one. Just to see how they're going to classify the LEO....paramilitary be the tie in for the 3rd Amendment.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/08/family-booted-from-home-for-police-detail-suing-with-rare-use-third-amendment/#ixzz2YW4Nj7j2
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
I didn't think they could enter your property without either permission or a warrant?
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Pretty jacked up... not sure if the 3rd Amendment's the right tactic to take.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Forget the third amendment, just charge the police officers as if they'd been civilians doing the same thing. Repeat as necessary until the police learn that they aren't god.
61774
Post by: Somedude593
 Ratbarf wrote:I didn't think they could enter your property without either permission or a warrant?
They cant, it is illegal to do so without one which is a much stronger argument than the third amendment.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Police charged with a B&E, illegal confinement, possibly kidnapping... I like it.
46630
Post by: wowsmash
Very strange, I know laws are different from state to state but I didn't think you had give up your house whenever the cops come knocking for stack out location. This country gets freakier every day.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Does it say anywhere what was going on that the police were trying to gain an advantage over?
There's being mindful of one's rights, and then there's being an anti-social jackass.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
A domestic violence situation of some kind I thought. Not that it really matters.
Now pick up the can citizen.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
It could potentially matter a great deal.
If there is a life or death situation and you are endangering lives with this sort of behavior you're pretty much an donkey-cave. That's why I'm wondering about additional details.
5470
Post by: sebster
It was a domestic violence situation that involved talking to a suspect to get him to surrender. So there was a stand off with police, that may have involved third parties in the house. In which case it only makes sense that police would look to use nearby houses as part of the containment of the situation, and surveillance of the person. And yeah, that means the people involved, unless they had a very good reason, were being donkey caves in denying the police the use of their houses.
That doesn't mean they're not allowed to deny the police the use of their home, but they're most likely being self-entitled nitwits for doing so.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Tough gak? I honestly don't care. It's not my problem, and it's certainly not worth me opening my home for use by the cops. Unless they have an active hostage situation... oh wait, even then I really couldn't care less. They want to put a marksman or observer up, I'll put the ladder out and they can use the roof. They didn't have any qualms about kicking Mitchell's door down, surely this big tough LEOs can go get the actual bad guy instead of picking on innocent civilians who have committed the crime of wanting to be left the feth alone by cops with a power complex.
How's this for a good reason? It's a private home. The cops have absolutely no entitlement to the use of that property, nor do the homeowners have any requirement, legal or moral to assist in any way shape or form in this situation or any other besides keeping to themselves on their private property. Even if Zombie Hitler is in the house across the street and the cops want to get a better look the Mitchells have an absolute right to be secure in their person and property from jack booted feth heads, and they don't even have to be self entitled or nit wits to deserve said rights.
https://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/03/59061.htm
Any way here's the full complaint, better write up then Faux.
LAS VEGAS (CN) - Henderson police arrested a family for refusing to let officers use their homes as lookouts for a domestic violence investigation of their neighbors, the family claims in court.
Anthony Mitchell and his parents Michael and Linda Mitchell sued the City of Henderson, its Police Chief Jutta Chambers, Officers Garret Poiner, Ronald Feola, Ramona Walls, Angela Walker, and Christopher Worley, and City of North Las Vegas and its Police Chief Joseph Chronister, in Federal Court.
Henderson, pop. 257,000, is a suburb of Las Vegas.
The Mitchell family's claim includes Third Amendment violations, a rare claim in the United States. The Third Amendment prohibits quartering soldiers in citizens' homes in times of peace without the consent of the owner.
"On the morning of July 10th, 2011, officers from the Henderson Police Department responded to a domestic violence call at a neighbor's residence," the Mitchells say in the complaint.
It continues: "At 10:45 a.m. defendant Officer Christopher Worley (HPD) contacted plaintiff Anthony Mitchell via his telephone. Worley told plaintiff that police needed to occupy his home in order to gain a 'tactical advantage' against the occupant of the neighboring house. Anthony Mitchell told the officer that he did not want to become involved and that he did not want police to enter his residence. Although Worley continued to insist that plaintiff should leave his residence, plaintiff clearly explained that he did not intend to leave his home or to allow police to occupy his home. Worley then ended the phone call.
Mitchell claims that defendant officers, including Cawthorn and Worley and Sgt. Michael Waller then "conspired among themselves to force Anthony Mitchell out of his residence and to occupy his home for their own use." (Waller is identified as a defendant in the body of the complaint, but not in the heading of it.)
The complaint continues: "Defendant Officer David Cawthorn outlined the defendants' plan in his official report: 'It was determined to move to 367 Evening Side and attempt to contact Mitchell. If Mitchell answered the door he would be asked to leave. If he refused to leave he would be arrested for Obstructing a Police Officer. If Mitchell refused to answer the door, force entry would be made and Mitchell would be arrested.'"
At a few minutes before noon, at least five defendant officers "arrayed themselves in front of plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's house and prepared to execute their plan," the complaint states.
It continues: "The officers banged forcefully on the door and loudly commanded Anthony Mitchell to open the door to his residence.
"Surprised and perturbed, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell immediately called his mother (plaintiff Linda Mitchell) on the phone, exclaiming to her that the police were beating on his front door.
"Seconds later, officers, including Officer Rockwell, smashed open plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's front door with a metal ram as plaintiff stood in his living room.
"As plaintiff Anthony Mitchell stood in shock, the officers aimed their weapons at Anthony Mitchell and shouted obscenities at him and ordered him to lie down on the floor.
"Fearing for his life, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell dropped his phone and prostrated himself onto the floor of his living room, covering his face and hands.
"Addressing plaintiff as 'donkey-cave', officers, including Officer Snyder, shouted conflicting orders at Anthony Mitchell, commanding him to both shut off his phone, which was on the floor in front of his head, and simultaneously commanding him to 'crawl' toward the officers.
"Confused and terrified, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell remained curled on the floor of his living room, with his hands over his face, and made no movement.
"Although plaintiff Anthony Mitchell was lying motionless on the ground and posed no threat, officers, including Officer David Cawthorn, then fired multiple 'pepperball' rounds at plaintiff as he lay defenseless on the floor of his living room. Anthony Mitchell was struck at least three times by shots fired from close range, injuring him and causing him severe pain." (Parentheses in complaint.)
Officers then arrested him for obstructing a police officer, searched the house and moved furniture without his permission and set up a place in his home for a lookout, Mitchell says in the complaint.
He says they also hurt his pet dog for no reason whatsoever: "Plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's pet, a female dog named 'Sam,' was cowering in the corner when officers smashed through the front door. Although the terrified animal posed no threat to officers, they gratuitously shot it with one or more pepperball rounds. The panicked animal howled in fear and pain and fled from the residence. Sam was subsequently left trapped outside in a fenced alcove without access to water, food, or shelter from the sun for much of the day, while temperatures outside soared to over 100 degrees Fahrenheit."
Anthony and his parents live in separate houses, close to one another on the same street. He claims that police treated his parents the same way.
"Meanwhile, starting at approximately 10:45 a.m., police officers entered the back yard of plaintiffs Michael Mitchell and Linda Mitchell's residence at 362 Eveningside Avenue. The officers asked plaintiff Michael Mitchell if he would be willing to vacate his residence and accompany them to their 'command center' under the guise that the officers wanted Michael Mitchell's assistance in negotiating the surrender of the neighboring suspect at 363 Eveningside Avenue. Plaintiff Michael Mitchell reluctantly agreed to follow the officers from his back yard to the HPD command center, which was approximately one quarter mile away," the complaint states.
"When plaintiff Michael Mitchell arrived at the HPD command center, he was informed that the suspect was 'not taking any calls' and that plaintiff Michael Mitchell would not be permitted to call the suspect neighbor from his own phone. At that time, Mr. Mitchell realized that the request to accompany officers to the HPD command center was a tactic to remove him from his house. He waited approximately ten minutes at the HPD command center and was told he could not return to his home.
"Plaintiff Michael Mitchell then left HPD command center and walked down Mauve Street toward the exit of the neighborhood. After walking for less than five minutes, an HPD car pulled up next to him. He was told that his wife, Linda Mitchell, had 'left the house' and would meet him at the HPD command center. Michael Mitchell then walked back up Mauve Street to the HPD command center. He called his son, James Mitchell, to pick him up at the HPD command center. When plaintiff Michael Mitchell attempted to leave the HPD command center to meet James, he was arrested, handcuffed and placed in the back of a marked police car.
"Officers had no reasonable grounds to detain plaintiff Michael Mitchell, nor probable
cause to suspect him of committing any crime.
"At approximately 1:45 p.m., a group of officers entered the backyard of plaintiffs Michael Mitchell and Linda Mitchell's residence at 362 Eveningside Avenue. They banged on the back door of the house and demanded that plaintiff Linda Mitchell open the door.
"Plaintiff Linda Mitchell complied and opened the door to her home. When she told officers that they could not enter her home without a warrant, the officers ignored her. One officer, defendant Doe 1, seized her by the arm, and other officers entered her home without permission.
"Defendant Doe 1 then forcibly pulled plaintiff Linda Mitchell out of her house.
"Another unidentified officer, defendant Doe 2, then seized plaintiff Linda Mitchell's purse and began rummaging through it, without permission, consent, or a warrant.
"Defendant Doe 1 then escorted Linda Mitchell at a brisk pace through her yard and
up the hill toward the 'Command Post' while maintaining a firm grip on her upper arm. Plaintiff Linda Mitchell is physically frail and had difficulty breathing due to the heat and the swift pace. However, Doe 1 ignored her pleas to be released or to at least slow down, and refused to provide any explanation for why she was being treated in such a manner.
"In the meantime, the officers searched and occupied plaintiffs Michael Mitchell and
Linda Mitchell's house. When plaintiff Linda Mitchell returned to her home, the cabinets and closet doors throughout the house had been left open and their contents moved about. Water had been consumed from their water dispenser. Even the refrigerator door had been left ajar and mustard and mayonnaise had been left on their kitchen floor."
Police took Anthony and Michael Mitchell to jail and booked them for obstructing an officer. They were jailed for at least nine hours before they bailed out, they say in the complaint. All criminals charged were dismissed with prejudice. They claim the defendants filed the baseless criminal charges "to provide cover for defendants' wrongful actions, to frustrate and impede plaintiffs' ability to seek relief for those actions, and to further intimidate and retaliate against plaintiffs."
None of the officers were ever subjected to official discipline or even inquiry, the complaint states.
The Mitchells seek punitive damages for violations of the third, fourth and 14th Amendments, assault and battery, conspiracy, defamation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, negligence and emotional distress.
They are represented by Benjamin C. Durham, with Cofer, Geller & Durham, in Las Vegas.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
You don't think there's a moral imperative to assist potentially saving lives?
Thanks for the full disclosure. I now know that there's really no further reason to read your posts.
33125
Post by: Seaward
 Monster Rain wrote:It could potentially matter a great deal.
If there is a life or death situation and you are endangering lives with this sort of behavior you're pretty much an donkey-cave. That's why I'm wondering about additional details.
I'm curious about additional details myself, though my money's honestly on, "bored cops wanting to finally use all that gear with MOLLE on it so they can look all operator-ish on the news" make mountain out of, 'Dude, come on out of the house, you're going to jail,' domestic violence molehill."
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Monster Rain wrote:You don't think there's a moral imperative to assist potentially saving lives?
I fail to see how that imperative begins to apply for this situation. These cops had plenty of time to go play storm trooper at Mitchell son of Mitchell's house, kick in his door, toss him around, shoot his dog with pepper pellets, move his furniture and eat his food and then play that little "come to the command center and maybe you can help us" game at Mitchell the Elder's house so it can hardly be said the situation was emergent or dynamic. We in fact know nothing about that situation. What we do know is that the cops did an absolutely bad thing in a situation where the home owners were morally and legally just fine to stay in their homes and have the guys with the badges feth right off.
I've saved two lives by my own hands and went far out of my way to do it, that still doesn't mean I have to let cops do whatever the hell they want with my property because they feel like it. I am fully within my rights and my personal morality to tell them to get stuffed.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Fun fact: if the police are in your house for something else and you have incriminating evidence in plain sight they can use it. So, if the police decide they need to take over your house and find your drugs sitting on the table you're going to jail. Which makes "we're taking over your house whether you like it or not" a warantless search that you are entirely justified in opposing.
5880
Post by: sqir666
This is just ridicolous.
I'm doubtful about the 3rd amendment, but the several others do apply though.
5470
Post by: sebster
 KalashnikovMarine wrote:Tough gak? I honestly don't care. It's not my problem, and it's certainly not worth me opening my home for use by the cops.
Your entire view of the world is completely disfunctional. Just devoid of reality. Basic human decency is more important than some inane nonsense that boils down to nothing more than really strange fetishisation of property rights.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
Monster Rain wrote:You don't think there's a moral imperative to assist potentially saving lives?
"Yes officer... Please do come in and use my house as part of a domestic violence investigation so that the violent bully you are investigating thinks I'm helping you against him and I become a target"... Ye.. No.
The police can ask but they have no right and you have no obligation, legal or moral, to help them. Especially when they think they have the right to then do this kind of thing, and then start eating your food. It doesn't sound like they were asking very nicely.
Some of your cops in the US are fethed up. People complain about the cops in the UK sometimes, but they don't do half of what I see and hear about some US cops doing.
1185
Post by: marv335
The police have no legal right to storm into someone's house whenever they feel like it.
If a home owner is asked to allow police in, and he says no, that's the end of it unless they can persuade a judge to provide a warrant and "because we want to" isn't, in my mind at least, a good reason.
I hope the Mitchells take the cops to the cleaners.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
 sebster wrote:
Basic human decency is more important than some inane nonsense that boils down to nothing more than really strange fetishisation of property rights.
It's basic human rights to feel safe and secure in your own property and the police feeling that they can come round and demand use of it at any time breaches this. It is basic human decency to respect someones rights to what they own.
33125
Post by: Seaward
The "basic human decency" line of thinking relies on there having actually been a credible need for all of this to occur. We don't know that for fact yet. This very well could've been cops just getting a hard-on for playing SEALs for a bit. The phrase "tactical advantage" used by small-town police has me leaning strongly in that direction. If it turns out anyone involved was wearing Mechanix gloves, I'm calling it.
5470
Post by: sebster
 Steve steveson wrote:It's basic human rights to feel safe and secure in your own property and the police feeling that they can come round and demand use of it at any time breaches this. It is basic human decency to respect someones rights to what they own.
Read the thread. Pay careful to attention to the entirety of what people have said. It will help you understand the points being made people. If you had done so, you would have noticed that I said that a person may well have the right to deny the police the use of their home, but enforcing that right is donkey-cave behaviour unless there was a really good reason for doing so. To which KalashnikovMarine replied "Tough gak? I honestly don't care. It's not my problem, and it's certainly not worth me opening my home for use by the cops."
To him it doesn't matter if the police might want to access his home in order to help save innocents. It's his home, therefore he can so no to the police, therefore he will say no to the police, because he's replaced any notion of the complex realities of human interaction with a theory that ultimately boils down to nothing more than a fetishisation of property rights. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Seaward wrote:The "basic human decency" line of thinking relies on there having actually been a credible need for all of this to occur. We don't know that for fact yet.
Absolutely. Which is why I haven't commented on this case, and instead have commented only on the idea that a person should never allow police the use of their home.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
sebster wrote:Basic human decency is more important than some inane nonsense that boils down to nothing more than really strange fetishisation of property rights.
Except it's not just a case of property rights for the sake of property rights. Ignoring the inconvenience of having your house temporarily occupied, it's important for three reasons:
1) It's a warrantless search. This would be less of a problem if the price of getting access to your property without your permission was that the police were unable to use any evidence they find, but that's not the case. If those property rights aren't respected all the police need is a pretense of "needing" your property and they can bypass that whole pesky warrant thing.
2) It's a loss of privacy and security. Sure it might be nice if you voluntarily let the police borrow your house to serve the greater good of society, but it's not exactly a trivial thing to be in a helpless position where your property rights can be ignored whenever the police find it convenient and you can be arrested for objecting. Those property rights exist for a reason, we have a perfectly reasonable expectation of being secure in our private homes and that is a line that needs to be maintained.
3) It's a bad precedent. Maybe it would be different in a country without a pointless and oppressive "war on drugs" and endless problems with police abuse, but the last thing I want to see in the US is the police getting the power to take over a person's home if it's convenient for them to do so. If they get that power in "extreme" cases it won't be at all surprising when the power is expanded more and more.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
sebster wrote:
Read the thread. Pay careful to attention to the entirety of what people have said. It will help you understand the points being made people. If you had done so, you would have noticed that I said that a person may well have the right to deny the police the use of their home, but enforcing that right is donkey-cave behaviour unless there was a really good reason for doing so. To which KalashnikovMarine replied "Tough gak? I honestly don't care. It's not my problem, and it's certainly not worth me opening my home for use by the cops."
How about you stop being condescending? How about you pay careful to attention to the basic premise of what is being said rather than making an argument about something unrelated. This is not about the police saying "please may we use your house. No? Oh ok... sorry to waste your time". The basic point of the whole story was that the police felt they had a right to kick down the door and take over the house. I don't think anyone is saying that the police should not ask. However what you are implying is that the police have a moral right to use someones house and what I'm saying is they don't, buy saying that it is wrong for someone to say no, and that is how the police end up feeling they have a right to do what they did.
5470
Post by: sebster
 Peregrine wrote:Except it's not just a case of property rights for the sake of property rights. Ignoring the inconvenience of having your house temporarily occupied, it's important for three reasons:
Seriously, read the words that I wrote in my exchange with KalashnikovMarine.
I said 'And yeah, that means the people involved, unless they had a very good reason, were being donkey caves in denying the police the use of their houses.' KalashnikovMarine responded to this, saying 'Tough gak? I honestly don't care. It's not my problem, and it's certainly not worth me opening my home for use by the cops. Unless they have an active hostage situation... oh wait, even then I really couldn't care less.'
I mean, fething hell. The guy thinks that even if there's an active hostage situation and he has no legal concerns such as having drugs in his house, he still isn't letting the police in, because 'waarghgarble his home is his property and he ain't letting anyone use it even if its to help save lives.'
And so to answer your three points;
1) Yes, it would be warrantless search, if the police didn't need your permission. But they do, and if you have a good reason to deny them access, then do so. If you don't, then don't be an donkey-cave who's more fixated on needlessly enforcing property rights than helping people.
2) No, it isn't a trivial thing to give up the free use of your house to police, but worrying about a short term personal discomfort when there's something serious happening is really selfish.
3) Sure, but my point of disagreement with KalashnikovMarine isn't about police always having the power to enter your home, it's whether a person should, given no pressing need otherwise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Steve steveson wrote:How about you stop being condescending? How about you pay careful to attention to the basic premise of what is being said rather than making an argument about something unrelated. This is not about the police saying "please may we use your house. No? Oh ok... sorry to waste your time". The basic point of the whole story was that the police felt they had a right to kick down the door and take over the house. I don't think anyone is saying that the police should not ask.
I know what the story is. As I already said, making any kind of comment on the specific case depends on all kinds of information we don't have, such as whether the complaint is even half true. As such, coming down on one side or the other is a total waste of time.
So instead, I made a general comment based on what I thought was a too broad comment made by another poster, in which he suggested it didn't matter what was happening next door. I said from the information it could well have been a serious matter, considering there appeared to be a stand-off with police, and therefore the people were possibly donkey-caves in denying the use of their home. And I then made a clarifying point, that they may well be entitled to deny the police the use of their home, but that doesn't mean they should do so. And that person, bizarrely disagreed with even that, because I didn't realise that 'waarghgarble property rights' had been taken to such a crazy extreme that people were now insisting they will enforce their rights simply because they can.
At which point you wandered in and started a reply that would have been completely unnecessary if only you'd read what had been posted.
However what you are implying is that the police have a moral right to use someones house and what I'm saying is they don't, buy saying that it is wrong for someone to say no, and that is how the police end up feeling they have a right to do what they did.
No, I am not saying that, nor am I implying it. I am saying that individual's, absent a good reason not to, have a moral obligation to allow the use of their property to help the police and other citizens. I don't know, and don't much care exactly when police can and cannot enter your property because of a crime committed by a third party. But you, as a human being, have an obligation to society and other people that is simply more important than defending your property rights because you can.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
sebster wrote:The guy thinks that even if there's an active hostage situation and he has no legal concerns such as having drugs in his house, he still isn't letting the police in, because 'waarghgarble his home is his property and he ain't letting anyone use it even if its to help save lives.'
To be fair, a right to privacy only matters if you can say no. If you're socially obligated to say yes then your right doesn't have very much value.
1) Yes, it would be warrantless search, if the police didn't need your permission. But they do, and if you have a good reason to deny them access, then do so. If you don't, then don't be an donkey-cave who's more fixated on needlessly enforcing property rights than helping people.
It could pretty reasonably be argued that anyone has a good reason to deny access, since there's a very real possibility that something you think is innocent could be interpreted as evidence the police are looking for in some case you've never even heard of (for example, they think you have stolen property). With that in mind the best policy is to never talk to the police without a lawyer or allow them access to your property.
Of course this could easily be avoided by throwing out any evidence (short of a dead body/bomb/etc) that the police find if they request access to private property in a situation like this. In that case you wouldn't have a reasonable objection because once the emergency power is invoked you could no longer suffer any legal harm from allowing the police to enter. But I guess it's more important to ensure that you can send someone to jail if you happen to see a bag of pot on the table.
2) No, it isn't a trivial thing to give up the free use of your house to police, but worrying about a short term personal discomfort when there's something serious happening is really selfish.
It's short-term for the immediate occupation, but there's a much broader issue with living in a society where the police can ignore property rights any time they like. It's like with all the various questionably-legal spying the US government has been doing, most people will never suffer even the slightest practical impact from it, but that doesn't stop it from being a disturbing lack of privacy that the government can spy on you without a warrant as long as they call you a terrorist first.
3) Sure, but my point of disagreement with KalashnikovMarine isn't about police always having the power to enter your home, it's whether a person should, given no pressing need otherwise.
And I'm saying that, given the long history of abuse by US police, it's not exactly unreasonable to believe that "no" should be the default answer just for the sake of opposing expansion of police power. Does it hurt society as a whole? Of course. But maybe that's a good reason to reconsider the idea that the constitution is only useful as toilet paper as long as you say you're violating it to fight drugs or terrorism.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
sebster wrote:
I know what the story is. As I already said, making any kind of comment depends on all kinds of information we don't have, such as whether the complaint is even half true.
So instead, I made a general comment based on what I thought was a loose comment made by another poster, in which he suggested it didn't matter what was happening next door. I said from the information it could well have been a serious matter, considering there appeared to be a stand-off with police, and therefore the people were possibly donkey-caves in denying the use of their home. And I then made a clarifying point, that they may well be entitled to deny the police the use of their home, but that doesn't mean they should do so.
At which point you wandered in and started a reply that would have been completely unnecessary if only you'd read what had been posted.
No, I was pointing out that you are wrong. Your saying people don't have a moral right to refuse the police use of there house. If you bother to read what I have said., and I mean properly read, not just make up what you THINK I have said, you will see I am disagreeing with the idea that the police have a moral right to enter your house whatever the situation. I am not talking in specifics about the case. I am agreeing with KM that the police do not have a right to enter your house without good reason (i.e. those ones that are legal).
Your making up what you think people are saying based on your own ideas of them. What people are saying is that the police clearly felt they had a right to enter this persons house. You are agreeing with them. You can talk all you want about generalizations but the fact is that in the context of the thread you are talking about generalized moral obligations of people to let the police enter there home. I am saying there is no such moral obligation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:[
However what you are implying is that the police have a moral right to use someones house and what I'm saying is they don't, buy saying that it is wrong for someone to say no, and that is how the police end up feeling they have a right to do what they did.
No, I am not saying that, nor am I implying it. I am saying that individual's, absent a good reason not to, have a moral obligation to allow the use of their property to help the police and other citizens.
Weasel words and double talk. "police have a moral right to use someones house"... "I am saying that individual's... have a moral obligation to allow the use of their property to help the police" Same difference. Your saying there is a moral obligation on one party therefor justifying the other party's actions to enforce this moral obligation.
Everyone else is saying they have no moral obligation and that the police have a legal and moral obligation to respect the rights and privacy of the owner of the property.
12313
Post by: Ouze
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Tough gak? I honestly don't care. It's not my problem, and it's certainly not worth me opening my home for use by the cops. Unless they have an active hostage situation... oh wait, even then I really couldn't care less. They want to put a marksman or observer up, I'll put the ladder out and they can use the roof. They didn't have any qualms about kicking Mitchell's door down, surely this big tough LEOs can go get the actual bad guy instead of picking on innocent civilians who have committed the crime of wanting to be left the feth alone by cops with a power complex.
How's this for a good reason? It's a private home. The cops have absolutely no entitlement to the use of that property, nor do the homeowners have any requirement, legal or moral to assist in any way shape or form in this situation or any other besides keeping to themselves on their private property
I agree with you. Well, partially, anyway - I probably don't agree that you don't have a moral requirement to assist when lives are at stake (and I don't know that is the case, I'm speaking generally).
But I think you do have the right to say no, and the cops have to respect that. The police have no right to commandeer a private home after the property owner says no unless there is probable cause to raid the second home. I mean, the bottom line is the police said they wanted to use the guys house, he said no, so they smashed in the door, beanbag shot him, arrested him for obstruction (amazingly without killing the dog this time); and used his house anyway. Net result: charges dismissed against everyone, including the neighbor in question. Another awesome win for the good guys.
If you don't think that's a disturbing precedent to set, I don't know what to say. Either we have the rule of law in this country, or we do not. The victim blaming started early but predictably with this one, huh?
1185
Post by: marv335
The police have a legal right to enter your house when they have a warrant from a judge saying they may do so.
In this case they were acting like a bunch of jack booted thugs.
They have severely overreacted, and have been called on it.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Anyway, good OP - this will be a fascinating case to follow and I hadn't seen it anywhere else.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
I agree that the Police had little justification for their alleged actions, especially if they restrained someone and then used an incapacitating agent such as pepper spray on him. Not only is it unnecessary, but a lot of Police forces do not permit it's use in confined spaces.
However trying to use the 3rd Amendment and have the Police seen as soldiers in the eyes of the law is unlikely to stand, imagine the effects for posse comitatus.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
sebster wrote: KalashnikovMarine wrote:Tough gak? I honestly don't care. It's not my problem, and it's certainly not worth me opening my home for use by the cops.
Your entire view of the world is completely disfunctional. Just devoid of reality.
Basic human decency is more important than some inane nonsense that boils down to nothing more than really strange fetishisation of property rights.
Except in this case there are quite a number of Amendments within the constitution that outline that this sort of situation just cannot legally happen. It's not a "strange fetishisation", it's one of the basic rights that the People granted the Government when we drafted up the constitution.
Even if Waco is happening right next door to my house, I have no true obligation to do anything other than go about my business as best I'm able to, and not obstruct the LEOs from doing their job, short of them breaking laws to use my residence.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
 marv335 wrote:The police have a legal right to enter your house when they have a warrant from a judge saying they may do so.
In this case they were acting like a bunch of jack booted thugs.
They have severely overreacted, and have been called on it.
Unless I missed something (which is always an option  ), the man who had his door kicked in, was shot with pepper spray pellets, and had his home commandeered was not on a warrant... Thus, no legal right for the cops to enter his domicile
34390
Post by: whembly
 Alfndrate wrote: marv335 wrote:The police have a legal right to enter your house when they have a warrant from a judge saying they may do so.
In this case they were acting like a bunch of jack booted thugs.
They have severely overreacted, and have been called on it.
Unless I missed something (which is always an option ), the man who had his door kicked in, was shot with pepper spray pellets, and had his home commandeered was not on a warrant... Thus, no legal right for the cops to enter his domicile
Yup... and certainly grounds for lawsuit of epic proportions.
16286
Post by: Necroshea
Oh look, cops being thugs again and still some here defend them.
Hope they get the crap sued out of them. Will def be following this case.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Tough gak? I honestly don't care. It's not my problem, and it's certainly not worth me opening my home for use by the cops. Unless they have an active hostage situation... oh wait, even then I really couldn't care less. They want to put a marksman or observer up, I'll put the ladder out and they can use the roof. They didn't have any qualms about kicking Mitchell's door down, surely this big tough LEOs can go get the actual bad guy instead of picking on innocent civilians who have committed the crime of wanting to be left the feth alone by cops with a power complex.
How's this for a good reason? It's a private home. The cops have absolutely no entitlement to the use of that property, nor do the homeowners have any requirement, legal or moral to assist in any way shape or form in this situation or any other besides keeping to themselves on their private property. Even if Zombie Hitler is in the house across the street and the cops want to get a better look the Mitchells have an absolute right to be secure in their person and property from jack booted feth heads, and they don't even have to be self entitled or nit wits to deserve said rights.
https://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/03/59061.htm
Any way here's the full complaint, better write up then Faux.
Yeah that write up is pretty damning, the actions of those Police officers is a disgrace.
Monster Rain wrote:You don't think there's a moral imperative to assist potentially saving lives?
Thanks for the full disclosure. I now know that there's really no further reason to read your posts.
How potential is potential?
If there was an imminent threat then you'd have firmer ground to base your argument. Gearing up, busting in someone's door, cuffing the occupant, shooting both the occupant and his dog with LTL rounds, setting up a command post, going to his parents house and getting the father to leave under false pretenses before making him walk a 1/4 mile before unlawfully detaining him, and then arresting the mother with no legal cause and carrying out illegal searches of private property don't strike me as necessary actions (or the appropriate use of Police resources) if there is an imminent danger of harm.
sebster wrote:Your entire view of the world is completely disfunctional. Just devoid of reality.
Basic human decency is more important than some inane nonsense that boils down to nothing more than really strange fetishisation of property rights.
Respect for private property and privacy are now "strange fetishisation of property rights"? So is it appropriate for the Police to commandeer your home with no right to do so?? Do you have any idea of the sort of precedent you're trying to set?
If the Police actually had a legal right to commandeer the property then a warrant would have been issued. Had the home owner then refused to co-operate the Police could have entered and removed him.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Not everyday you see a 3rd amendment violation such as this.
But seriosuly, they shot the cowering dog?
221
Post by: Frazzled
3rd Amendment is an interesting take, basically that any gobvernment agent is a government agent, not just military.
As towards charges, good luck. Who guards the guards?
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
 Frazzled wrote:
3rd Amendment is an interesting take, basically that any gobvernment agent is a government agent, not just military.
As towards charges, good luck. Who guards the guards?
The Watchmen obviously.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
How potential is potential?
If there was an imminent threat then you'd have firmer ground to base your argument.
Let's not get bogged down in pedantry, here.
As a rule, if there is a situation in which all you have to do is let the police use your house to simply end a potentially life-threatening situation for someone else (in this story the term "standoff" is used which has certain connotations) and you refuse to do so based on nothing other than your ability to refuse, you are a colossal douchebag. Did that happen here? I don't know, which is why we were talking in generalities.
Steve steveson wrote: Monster Rain wrote:You don't think there's a moral imperative to assist potentially saving lives?
"Yes officer... Please do come in and use my house as part of a domestic violence investigation so that the violent bully you are investigating thinks I'm helping you against him and I become a target"... Ye.. No..
 Ouze wrote:The victim blaming started early but predictably with this one, huh?
You didn't read the thread very closely.
This line of conversation is based off of reserving judgment to see whether it was reasonable to not cooperate. People are too wrapped up in their rights to realize that they might occasionally have a responsibility to the community. I only hope that the "hurrrr freedom" crowd is never in a situation that is made more difficult for them to be helped by authorities because their neighbor has a warped sense right and wrong.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Can I at least ask the police why they need my house?
If someone says, "Police, we need to use your house" and I say "no" is that cool? If someone says, "Police, we need to use your house, your neighbor is about to go Chris Brown on his wife." and I say "no" is that cool?
Does the amount of information the police give me allow me to make a better decision on the situation and make me more or less of a donkey cave for not letting them in?
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
I don't think they're using their best argument, but from a novelty standpoint, I'm excited to see someone argue the third. Will be watching this.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Rented Tritium wrote:I don't think they're using their best argument, but from a novelty standpoint, I'm excited to see someone argue the third. Will be watching this.
Agreed. It may be one of multiple motions however. This screams oppression, violation of civil rights etc etc.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
I think that would be reasonable.
Alfndrate wrote:If someone says, "Police, we need to use your house, your neighbor is about to go Chris Brown on his wife." and I say "no" is that cool?
I would say that this is one of the situations that you would be an complete and utter tool for not cooperating, though I don't know why they would need to get a vantage point from another house for a situation that would be easily solved by bum-rushing the guy.
Alfndrate wrote:Does the information the police give me allow me to make a better decision on the situation and make me less of a donkey cave for not letting them in?
I think it's fair to want to know why they would like to use your property, yes.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Monster Rain wrote:
Let's not get bogged down in pedantry, here.
As a rule, if there is a situation in which all you have to do is let the police use your house to simply end a potentially life-threatening situation for someone else (in this story the term "standoff" is used which has certain connotations) and you refuse to do so based on nothing other than your ability to refuse, you are a colossal douchebag. Did that happen here? I don't know, which is why we were talking in generalities.
Thank you for ignoring much of the rest of what I said.
It's not pedantry, it is a serious question. The Police are trained that even routine traffic stops have the potential to be hazardous. As I said, if there was an imminent risk (and not some vague "potential") then yes I would be more likely to agree with you. But the actions of the Police do not lend themselves to supporting the claim of any real or serious threat to justify their actions.
The homeowner has a right to refuse entry to whomever (s)he sees fit, unless compelled to do otherwise by the law. The Police did not go and obtain a warrant (which would be signed off very quickly if there is an imminent risk of harm), but instead chose to devote time and resources to storming a house, and then using deception and force to commandeer a second house that just happened to be the home of the initial homeowner's parents. Automatically Appended Next Post: Rented Tritium wrote:I don't think they're using their best argument, but from a novelty standpoint, I'm excited to see someone argue the third. Will be watching this.
Likewise. I think that using the 3rd as a peg to hang your argument is shaky at best, but they do have many other grounds.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Rented Tritium wrote:I don't think they're using their best argument, but from a novelty standpoint, I'm excited to see someone argue the third. Will be watching this.
Same here. The good news is that the victims can count on a massive, nationwide lobby group that makes the NRA seem like a high school debating club, and will vigorously protect their third amendment rights! 
From the top of my head, I think there has only ever been one 3rd amendment case that has went to the SCOTUS, and they lost that one.
As I've often said, you can't create a constitution with a clear anti-British mandate and expect to survive in the modern world. 
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Monster Rain wrote:I think it's fair to want to know why they would like to use your property, yes.
Okay, I'm content with your post/answer .
I still think the cops could have handled this better, and I think the guy in question could have asked for some more information, but I don't knock the guy for not wanting to let the cops in.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Monster Rain wrote:
Let's not get bogged down in pedantry, here.
As a rule, if there is a situation in which all you have to do is let the police use your house to simply end a potentially life-threatening situation for someone else (in this story the term "standoff" is used which has certain connotations) and you refuse to do so based on nothing other than your ability to refuse, you are a colossal douchebag. Did that happen here? I don't know, which is why we were talking in generalities.
Thank you for ignoring much of the rest of what I said.
It's not pedantry, it is a serious question. The Police are trained that even routine traffic stops have the potential to be hazardous. As I said, if there was an imminent risk (and not some vague "potential") then yes I would be more likely to agree with you. But the actions of the Police do not lend themselves to supporting the claim of any real or serious threat to justify their actions.
It is 100% pedantry.
Read what I said again. Without knowing what was going on in the other house it's impossible to know if it was reasonable not to cooperate. I didn't ignore what you said, it didn't have any bearing on what I was saying, because I'm talking about a general issue of civic responsibility and not necessarily who was right or wrong in this case. My issue, again, is the idea that simply refusing to help out based on your ability to do so is asinine.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Monster Rain wrote:It is 100% pedantry.
Read what I said again. Without knowing what was going on in the other house it's impossible to know if it was reasonable not to cooperate. I didn't ignore what you said, it didn't have any bearing on what I was saying, because I'm talking about a general issue of civic responsibility and not necessarily who was right or wrong in this case. My issue, again, is the idea that simply refusing to help out based on your ability to do so is asinine.
And my point is that being obliged to open your home without lawful reason to do so, bar some vague notion of threat to another, is hugely asinine and runs contrary to the notions of privacy and private property.
What we do know is that the Police had ample time to indulge in many reckless actions that diverted resources away from the initial incident that called for their presence. On that basis I think it is more than reasonable to say that there was not a sufficient risk of imminent harm.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Your rights trump other peoples' lives?
Where have I read that before?
Anyway, it seems we are talking past each other. It may very well be that the guy was 100% right not to let the cops in. My concern is that people would refuse them entry even if they had sufficient reason to actually need their house to help someone due to, as sebster put it, a property rights fetish.
221
Post by: Frazzled
No it would be stupid.
Alfndrate wrote:If someone says, "Police, we need to use your house, your neighbor is about to go Chris Brown on his wife." and I say "no" is that cool?
I would say that this is one of the situations that you would be an complete and utter tool for not cooperating, though I don't know why they would need to get a vantage point from another house for a situation that would be easily solved by bum-rushing the guy.
No it would be stupid.
Alfndrate wrote:Does the information the police give me allow me to make a better decision on the situation and make me less of a donkey cave for not letting them in?
I think it's fair to want to know why they would like to use your property, yes.
Fair but blindingly stupid to say anything other than "This is being recorded. You can enter my home when you have a warrant. "
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
221
Post by: Frazzled
Monster Rain wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote: Monster Rain wrote:
Let's not get bogged down in pedantry, here.
As a rule, if there is a situation in which all you have to do is let the police use your house to simply end a potentially life-threatening situation for someone else (in this story the term "standoff" is used which has certain connotations) and you refuse to do so based on nothing other than your ability to refuse, you are a colossal douchebag. Did that happen here? I don't know, which is why we were talking in generalities.
Thank you for ignoring much of the rest of what I said.
It's not pedantry, it is a serious question. The Police are trained that even routine traffic stops have the potential to be hazardous. As I said, if there was an imminent risk (and not some vague "potential") then yes I would be more likely to agree with you. But the actions of the Police do not lend themselves to supporting the claim of any real or serious threat to justify their actions.
It is 100% pedantry.
Read what I said again. Without knowing what was going on in the other house it's impossible to know if it was reasonable not to cooperate. I didn't ignore what you said, it didn't have any bearing on what I was saying, because I'm talking about a general issue of civic responsibility and not necessarily who was right or wrong in this case. My issue, again, is the idea that simply refusing to help out based on your ability to do so is asinine.
If you cooperate, you're a moron.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Not today, Frazzled.
Not today.
11180
Post by: thechosen1
No matter where you stand on this argument, you all have to agree that since this is a so rarely heard 3rd Amendment case:
37585
Post by: Wyrmalla
So he wasn't in the right for not letting the police in, but the police were allowed to enter his home by force? I'd say that the police were in the wrong for thinking that they could seize the house without opposition, then for using out of hand force to do so. I think that they could have found an alternative way of pursuing the case outside of setting up in that guy's house. To that end they probably had ulterior motives seeing as they also entered the guy's parent's house too. Thus they knew that they were in the wrong from the start, the results proceeding pulling up at his door just added to that.
221
Post by: Frazzled
The police were not allowed to enter his home by force.
37585
Post by: Wyrmalla
The whole situation just seems suspect to me, not just because of the undue amount of force that they used on him...
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
The laws that allow for anything even REMOTELY like this all require serious immediate emergencies of life and death nature.
Obviously they didn't have that if it was just to further an investigation.
12313
Post by: Ouze
 hotsauceman1 wrote:Not everyday you see a 3rd amendment violation such as this.
But seriosuly, they shot the cowering dog?
Incredibly enough, they didn't shoot the dog fatally. On both the homeowner and the dog, they used less-lethal CN rounds.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:The homeowner has a right to refuse entry to whomever (s)he sees fit, unless compelled to do otherwise by the law. The Police did not go and obtain a warrant (which would be signed off very quickly if there is an imminent risk of harm), but instead chose to devote time and resources to storming a house, and then using deception and force to commandeer a second house that just happened to be the home of the initial homeowner's parents.
I think the fact they dismissed all charges in the end, including the charges against the neighbor in question, speaks volumes as to severity of the alleged lawbreaking that required all this nonsense.
70365
Post by: Gentleman_Jellyfish
Ouze wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:Not everyday you see a 3rd amendment violation such as this.
But seriosuly, they shot the cowering dog?
Incredibly enough, they didn't shoot the dog fatally. On both the homeowner and the dog, they used less-lethal CN rounds.
Must have been an accident
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Monster Rain wrote:Your rights trump other peoples' lives?
Where have I read that before?
Anyway, it seems we are talking past each other. It may very well be that the guy was 100% right not to let the cops in. My concern is that people would refuse them entry even if they had sufficient reason to actually need their house to help someone due to, as sebster put it, a property rights fetish.
Where did it say that someone's life was at risk? Nowhere. This is why I was asking how imminent the risk of harm was. If there is no real immediate risk then your argument doesn't hold water.
And if the cops had sufficient reason they would also have gotten a warrant in less time than it took to do what they did instead.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Still, the dog was cowering. It didnt do anything to the cops. Also, since when do the cops car so much about domestice abuse?
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Ouze wrote:I think the fact they dismissed all charges in the end, including the charges against the neighbor in question, speaks volumes as to severity of the alleged lawbreaking that required all this nonsense.
Pretty much my thinking too. It just looks like the Police grossly out stepped their remit, and any lawful powers they may have had.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Ouze wrote:I think the fact they dismissed all charges in the end, including the charges against the neighbor in question, speaks volumes as to severity of the alleged lawbreaking that required all this nonsense.
Ding ding ding.
Maybe it's just being reported more, but it seems as though incidents of cops going way too far into "we're badass door-kickers just like in the vidya games, hurrrrrr" territory are increasing. Automatically Appended Next Post: hotsauceman1 wrote:Still, the dog was cowering. It didnt do anything to the cops. Also, since when do the cops car so much about domestice abuse?
When they're bored and see an opportunity to use all the tacticool gak they buy.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Seaward wrote: Ouze wrote:I think the fact they dismissed all charges in the end, including the charges against the neighbor in question, speaks volumes as to severity of the alleged lawbreaking that required all this nonsense.
Ding ding ding.
Maybe it's just being reported more, but it seems as though incidents of cops going way too far into "we're badass door-kickers just like in the vidya games, hurrrrrr" territory are increasing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote:Still, the dog was cowering. It didnt do anything to the cops. Also, since when do the cops car so much about domestice abuse?
When they're bored and see an opportunity to use all the tacticool gak they buy.
Mark this day. Seaward and Frazzled agree on all counts.
37231
Post by: d-usa
The threat they were responding to was so imminent that they couldn't bother to break down the door and stop the domestic abuse situation, but important enough to bust down the door at the neighbors house to monitor the situation that didn't require the busting of doors itself.
Did I get that right?
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
This always brings me back to thinking about what right does one have to protect oneself against actions by LEO's acting illegally.
Even things such as being forced to give your information to police officers when they have no right to demand that information. Can one (ok, I know one could...) fight back against police acting unlawfully at the time the unlawful action takes place?
Personally I would be reluctant to offer my home to police "because they wanted to use it" almost regardless of circumstance. I sure as feth would be extremely unpleased, to say the least, if they then stormed my house, shot me and arrested me and other members of my family because I exercised my legal right to turn down their request. I most certainly would file charges of B&E, assault, kidnap, ransom, and as much else as I could throw at them.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Seaward wrote: Ouze wrote:I think the fact they dismissed all charges in the end, including the charges against the neighbor in question, speaks volumes as to severity of the alleged lawbreaking that required all this nonsense.
Ding ding ding.
Maybe it's just being reported more, but it seems as though incidents of cops going way too far into "we're badass door-kickers just like in the vidya games, hurrrrrr" territory are increasing.
This is true but there has also been a phenomenon called "swatting" which has begun to show its face more and more recently.
It is pretty much exactly what it sounds like. Someone calls 911/emergency services and describes a situation that would merit a tactical team or gets someone to behave in such a manner that it would make an uncomfortable or nosy neighbor to call 911/emergency services with a description of an event that would merit a tactical team.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Still, the dog was cowering. It didnt do anything to the cops. Also, since when do the cops care so much about domestic abuse?
When they're bored and see an opportunity to use all the tacticool gak they buy.
This is also true, but domestic abuse cases where one spouse is actively threatening to kill themselves and the other spouse get bumped up the ladder pretty damn quick.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 d-usa wrote:The threat they were responding to was so imminent that they couldn't bother to break down the door and stop the domestic abuse situation, but important enough to bust down the door at the neighbors house to monitor the situation that didn't require the busting of doors itself.
Did I get that right?
Yes, evidently. Its crazy.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Combat envy.....most cops are not military....never deployed and "enjoyed" that experience...this so falls under a "cordon and search" mission. Just replace the home owners with Iraqi's or Afghani's and its a no issue. (That's a separate thread people). I'm being a smart arse on this post or the LEO's got really carried away riding on adrenalin, motivation and dedication feeling taking them over the top.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Again, just gonna put it forward:
'Swatting' may very well have played a part in this. Most people targeted for a 'swatting' have been celebrities but that does not mean some mean spirited individual is not going to use it as an opportunity to mess with a neighbor.
Add to it that there has been a move by the LAPD(one of the departments that have fallen for this 'prank' more than once) to make it so that they no longer announce when they have responded to a 'swatting' call and it fits with no charges being filed.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Monster Rain wrote:Your rights trump other peoples' lives?
Where have I read that before?
Anyway, it seems we are talking past each other. It may very well be that the guy was 100% right not to let the cops in. My concern is that people would refuse them entry even if they had sufficient reason to actually need their house to help someone due to, as sebster put it, a property rights fetish.
Where did it say that someone's life was at risk? Nowhere. This is why I was asking how imminent the risk of harm was. If there is no real immediate risk then your argument doesn't hold water.
And if the cops had sufficient reason they would also have gotten a warrant in less time than it took to do what they did instead.
I'll try one more time.
In this case refusal may have been warranted. My issue is with simply saying "No cops in my house ever, for no other reason than I have the right to refuse".
221
Post by: Frazzled
In this case refusal may have been warranted. My issue is with simply saying "No cops in my house ever, for no other reason than I have the right to refuse".
OK, lets explore this, and I'll be polite.
Why do you have an issue with that?
12313
Post by: Ouze
 Kanluwen wrote:Again, just gonna put it forward:
'Swatting' may very well have played a part in this. Most people targeted for a 'swatting' have been celebrities but that does not mean some mean spirited individual is not going to use it as an opportunity to mess with a neighbor.
I'm familiar with the term and it's usage from the excellent series of articles the Smoking Gun put out on Pranknet. It would explain the dismissal of charges, but, your conjecture explains not at all why they felt the exigency to batter down the door of the neighbors house; but not the actual house in question.
Of course, disproportionate use of force, poor PC, and all-around crappy policework would also have tainted the case so badly the DA felt the charges had to be dismissed as well, right - since we're speculating?
I feel comfortable with calling shenanigans at this point, but would certainly read with an open mind any contrary telling of events with a basis in fact (ie reporting, police blotter, court transcript, etc).
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Ouze wrote: Kanluwen wrote:Again, just gonna put it forward:
'Swatting' may very well have played a part in this. Most people targeted for a 'swatting' have been celebrities but that does not mean some mean spirited individual is not going to use it as an opportunity to mess with a neighbor.
I'm familiar with the term and it's usage from the excellent series of articles the Smoking Gun put out on Pranknet. It would explain the lack of charges, but, your conjecture explains not at all why they felt the exigency to batter down the door of the neighbors house; but not the actual house in question.
I feel comfortable with calling shenanigans at this point, but would certainly read with an open mind any contrary telling of events with a basis in fact (ie reporting, police blotter, court transcript, etc).
If someone called in and mentioned a bomb it would make sense as to why they wanted to surround the place rather than storm it.
12313
Post by: Ouze
I just edited my post but I missed your response.
221
Post by: Frazzled
A bomb in a domestic dispute? THEY DIDN"T SAY THAT. Come on Josephus that dog don't hunt.
PLus there would have been lots of flashing lights, bomb squad etc. etc. The plaintiffs would have been very very aware.
34390
Post by: whembly
Not to derail the thread too much... but, here's one laywer's take on swatting that he himself was targeted.
Back to OP: You should have the right to refuse anyone into your own home, unless there's a warrant. In this case, I'm curious how the courts will rule regarding the 3rd amendment. I'm wondering if the lawyers are trying to get a criminal verdict in first, so that they can sue civilly for big bukoo bucks?
241
Post by: Ahtman
I would think that any reasonable adult would understand why saying 'no' just because you can in any situation, and saying you would not consider the context of a situation would be pretty evident as to why it is silly on it's face. Sometimes you should say no, sometimes you should say yes, but the circumstances and reason should determine it, not just that you can say no.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Frazzled wrote:A bomb in a domestic dispute? THEY DIDN"T SAY THAT. Come on Josephus that dog don't hunt.
Plus there would have been lots of flashing lights, bomb squad etc. etc. The plaintiffs would have been very very aware.
You must have missed where Ouze and I were discussing "swatting" as a possible explanation for this bizarre set of circumstances, rather than simply "police wanted to play out their own episode of 24".
In case you are unaware Frazzled:
Swatting is when an individual for purposes of a prank/amusement or a grudge against someone uses something like a caller ID spoofing device/internet phone relay to call emergency services and report an incident so far outside of what would result in the normal deployment of patrol officers that it has to result in the presence of a SWAT team.
Primarily swatting has been used to target celebrities and other public figures rather than in everyday disputes, but the door is still open for such a thing and it is unlikely that the police would actually admit to having fallen victim to such a prank.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Frazzled wrote:
In this case refusal may have been warranted. My issue is with simply saying "No cops in my house ever, for no other reason than I have the right to refuse".
OK, lets explore this, and I'll be polite.
Why do you have an issue with that?
I have an issue with it because you could potentially be preventing help from reaching someone who needs it, or obstructing the neutralization of a potentially life-threatening situation. Personally, I find it objectionable to put one's convenience(or insert some other abstraction here) over someone else's safety for no other reason than the fact that one is entitled to do so.
Again, speaking in generalities based on statements made in this thread, not necessarily the story in the OP itself.
 Ahtman wrote:I would think that any reasonable adult would understand why saying 'no' just because you can in any situation, and saying you would not consider the context of a situation would be pretty evident as to why it is silly on it's face. Sometimes you should say no, sometimes you should say yes, but the circumstances and reason should determine it, not just that you can say no.
Also, this.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Ahtman wrote:
I would think that any reasonable adult would understand why saying 'no' just because you can in any situation, and saying you would not consider the context of a situation would be pretty evident as to why it is silly on it's face. Sometimes you should say no, sometimes you should say yes, but the circumstances and reason should determine it, not just that you can say no.
I don't know of a situation for which I would say yes. I mean, I suppose it would all depend upon the circumstances, and I'm not crossing my arms and saying "No, no, no" right now without the situation being presented for evaluation. The problem is this though:
If there's no immediate danger, well, that's what they get paid for.
If there IS immediate danger, well, do I have a family? Do I expect bullets to start flying? Do I expect that the guy they're after is going to ever see the light of day and feel like retaliation? Chances are my response would be, "I don't want to be involved, try the other neighbor."
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ahtman wrote:
I would think that any reasonable adult would understand why saying 'no' just because you can in any situation, and saying you would not consider the context of a situation would be pretty evident as to why it is silly on it's face. Sometimes you should say no, sometimes you should say yes, but the circumstances and reason should determine it, not just that you can say no.
As a policy it is rare to find a defense attorney state you should agree to any search, and that is what this effectively is.
Once you let them in they are free to search any areas in plain sight, and plain sight is an elastic term.
But lets assume they are there for surveillance. How long do they stay? What if your dog barks at them? How do you get them out once they are there?
There's a reason we have the Third Amendment.
241
Post by: Ahtman
 daedalus wrote:I don't know of a situation for which I would say yes. I mean, I suppose it would all depend upon the circumstances, and I'm not crossing my arms and saying "No, no, no" right now without the situation being presented for evaluation.
That is why no specific situation has been proffered and we are just talking about it in general terms. I don't know what situation I would say yes to either, but I'm not going to say that I am just going to always say no either. The future is scary and exciting.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Frazzled wrote: Ahtman wrote:
I would think that any reasonable adult would understand why saying 'no' just because you can in any situation, and saying you would not consider the context of a situation would be pretty evident as to why it is silly on it's face. Sometimes you should say no, sometimes you should say yes, but the circumstances and reason should determine it, not just that you can say no.
As a policy it is rare to find a defense attorney state you should agree to any search, and that is what this effectively is.
Once you let them in they are free to search any areas in plain sight, and plain sight is an elastic term.
But lets assume they are there for surveillance. How long do they stay? What if your dog barks at them? How do you get them out once they are there?
There's a reason we have the Third Amendment.
Yeah.
To prevent members of a military from being able to take over your home without compensation towards you and your family.
It had a lot more meaning back when the British would essentially requisition homes without so much as paying for meals or supplies and does not really apply to police temporarily inconveniencing you.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Frazzled wrote: Ahtman wrote:
I would think that any reasonable adult would understand why saying 'no' just because you can in any situation, and saying you would not consider the context of a situation would be pretty evident as to why it is silly on it's face. Sometimes you should say no, sometimes you should say yes, but the circumstances and reason should determine it, not just that you can say no.
As a policy it is rare to find a defense attorney state you should agree to any search, and that is what this effectively is.
Once you let them in they are free to search any areas in plain sight, and plain sight is an elastic term.
But lets assume they are there for surveillance. How long do they stay? What if your dog barks at them? How do you get them out once they are there?
There's a reason we have the Third Amendment.
Sure there is. It's just as goofy to say you should always let them in as it is to say you never should.
daedalus wrote: Ahtman wrote:
I would think that any reasonable adult would understand why saying 'no' just because you can in any situation, and saying you would not consider the context of a situation would be pretty evident as to why it is silly on it's face. Sometimes you should say no, sometimes you should say yes, but the circumstances and reason should determine it, not just that you can say no.
I don't know of a situation for which I would say yes. I mean, I suppose it would all depend upon the circumstances, and I'm not crossing my arms and saying "No, no, no" right now without the situation being presented for evaluation. The problem is this though:
If there's no immediate danger, well, that's what they get paid for.
If there IS immediate danger, well, do I have a family? Do I expect bullets to start flying? Do I expect that the guy they're after is going to ever see the light of day and feel like retaliation? Chances are my response would be, "I don't want to be involved, try the other neighbor."
I don't suppose it occurs to you that if someone dies or is harmed due to your refusal you could be looking at reprisal, both legal and otherwise, anyway?
34390
Post by: whembly
Monster Rain wrote:I don't suppose it occurs to you that if someone dies or is harmed due to your refusal you could be looking at reprisal, both legal and otherwise, anyway?
Eh... what?
No... just... no.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Monster Rain wrote:I don't suppose it occurs to you that if someone dies or is harmed due to your refusal you could be looking at reprisal, both legal and otherwise, anyway?
Don't believe that's true.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Frazzled wrote:As a policy it is rare to find a defense attorney state you should agree to any search, and that is what this effectively is.
But all defense attorneys I know would say that you should be a jerk to cops at all times, even if it is just sitting next to one at a bar in their time off. It also is falling back as only viewing any situation through a prism of the law when there is more to any situation then just what the law would say.
Frazzled wrote:Once you let them in they are free to search any areas in plain sight, and plain sight is an elastic term.
Which is why you should consider it carefully if you are to let them in, but not really an argument to always say no just because one can.
Frazzled wrote:But lets assume they are there for surveillance. How long do they stay? What if your dog barks at them? How do you get them out once they are in?
Now you are getting into specific scenarios and away from principle. The more facts we have in a given instance the more we can make an informed decision as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Seaward wrote: Monster Rain wrote:I don't suppose it occurs to you that if someone dies or is harmed due to your refusal you could be looking at reprisal, both legal and otherwise, anyway?
Don't believe that's true.
Hindering police investigations/arrests immediately come to mind.
You likely would not be responsible for a death or injuries, but still could be considered as impeding the investigation/arrest with your refusal.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Kanluwen wrote:Hindering police investigations/arrests immediately come to mind.
You likely would not be responsible for a death or injuries, but still could be considered as impeding the investigation/arrest with your refusal.
Don't believe that's true, either.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Seaward wrote: Monster Rain wrote:I don't suppose it occurs to you that if someone dies or is harmed due to your refusal you could be looking at reprisal, both legal and otherwise, anyway?
Don't believe that's true.
You don't think that someone who loses a loved one due to your actions would be likely to take some sort of action about it? As in, you willfully obstructed something that might have prevented whatever it was from happening?
Especially in this context, where you are not taking an action due to fear of the reaction of another party? That's a general "you".
34390
Post by: whembly
Kanluwen wrote: Seaward wrote: Monster Rain wrote:I don't suppose it occurs to you that if someone dies or is harmed due to your refusal you could be looking at reprisal, both legal and otherwise, anyway?
Don't believe that's true.
Hindering police investigations/arrests immediately come to mind.
You likely would not be responsible for a death or injuries, but still could be considered as impeding the investigation/arrest with your refusal.
Not for refusing access to your own home.
There's case law galore about this even with vehicles.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ahtman wrote: daedalus wrote:I don't know of a situation for which I would say yes. I mean, I suppose it would all depend upon the circumstances, and I'm not crossing my arms and saying "No, no, no" right now without the situation being presented for evaluation.
That is why no specific situation has been proffered and we are just talking about it in general terms. I don't know what situation I would say yes to either, but I'm not going to say that I am just going to always say no either. The future is scary and exciting.
Granted, there may always be a circumstance where voluntary admittence is warranted. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kanluwen wrote: Frazzled wrote: Ahtman wrote:
I would think that any reasonable adult would understand why saying 'no' just because you can in any situation, and saying you would not consider the context of a situation would be pretty evident as to why it is silly on it's face. Sometimes you should say no, sometimes you should say yes, but the circumstances and reason should determine it, not just that you can say no.
As a policy it is rare to find a defense attorney state you should agree to any search, and that is what this effectively is.
Once you let them in they are free to search any areas in plain sight, and plain sight is an elastic term.
But lets assume they are there for surveillance. How long do they stay? What if your dog barks at them? How do you get them out once they are there?
There's a reason we have the Third Amendment.
Yeah.
To prevent members of a military from being able to take over your home without compensation towards you and your family.
It had a lot more meaning back when the British would essentially requisition homes without so much as paying for meals or supplies and does not really apply to police temporarily inconveniencing you.
of course the Briitsh troops didn't tazer your dog and send you to jail either...
33125
Post by: Seaward
Monster Rain wrote:You don't think that someone who loses a loved one due to your actions would be likely to take some sort of action about it?
Especially in this context, where you are not taking an action due to fear of the reaction of another party?
Well, I'm not taking action because I don't consent to searches, so that bit doesn't apply to me.
There's no duty to rescue in my state, so there's zero legal basis for saying, "You're required to help someone in need of it."
34390
Post by: whembly
Monster Rain wrote:
You don't think that someone who loses a loved one due to your actions would be likely to take some sort of action about it?
Especially in this context, where you are not taking an action due to fear of the reaction of another party? That's a general "you".
Wait... are you saying that if you heard some "screaming" next door... but you confused it to be "playing", but in actuality someone is being assault/murdered... that you'd be liable for it simply because you're next door?
Cuz... that's what it looks like you're saying....
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Seaward wrote: Monster Rain wrote:You don't think that someone who loses a loved one due to your actions would be likely to take some sort of action about it?
Especially in this context, where you are not taking an action due to fear of the reaction of another party?
Well, I'm not taking action because I don't consent to searches, so that bit doesn't apply to me.
There's no duty to rescue in my state, so there's zero legal basis for saying, "You're required to help someone in need of it."
You need a legal mandate, then? Either way, it's not a matter of you helping, it's a matter of you obstructing others from helping.
whembly wrote: Monster Rain wrote:
You don't think that someone who loses a loved one due to your actions would be likely to take some sort of action about it?
Especially in this context, where you are not taking an action due to fear of the reaction of another party? That's a general "you".
Wait... are you saying that if you heard some "screaming" next door... but you confused it to be "playing", but in actuality someone is being assault/murdered... that you'd be liable for it simply because you're next door?
Cuz... that's what it looks like you're saying....
Then you aren't reading very closely.
70365
Post by: Gentleman_Jellyfish
 whembly wrote: Monster Rain wrote:
You don't think that someone who loses a loved one due to your actions would be likely to take some sort of action about it?
Especially in this context, where you are not taking an action due to fear of the reaction of another party? That's a general "you".
Wait... are you saying that if you heard some "screaming" next door... but you confused it to be "playing", but in actuality someone is being assault/murdered... that you'd be liable for it simply because you're next door?
Cuz... that's what it looks like you're saying....
And then if you do think it's screaming and you call the cops 46 times in 8 years you're crazy as well!*
No winning in this world.
*Referring to the GZ & TM case
34390
Post by: whembly
I disagree... I see where you're coming from. ('cuz, I can readz...)
I simply disagree with your premise that we'd be held accountable if we refuse any authorities from using our properties during the course of their investigation.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Kanluwen wrote: Seaward wrote: Monster Rain wrote:I don't suppose it occurs to you that if someone dies or is harmed due to your refusal you could be looking at reprisal, both legal and otherwise, anyway?
Don't believe that's true.
Hindering police investigations/arrests immediately come to mind.
You likely would not be responsible for a death or injuries, but still could be considered as impeding the investigation/arrest with your refusal.
Horse fething gak. And here we get to iron fist under the glove. Pick up that can citizen!
NO.
Kanluwen's mentality is the reason I'm inflexible. Automatically Appended Next Post: Monster Rain wrote: Seaward wrote: Monster Rain wrote:I don't suppose it occurs to you that if someone dies or is harmed due to your refusal you could be looking at reprisal, both legal and otherwise, anyway?
Don't believe that's true.
You don't think that someone who loses a loved one due to your actions would be likely to take some sort of action about it? As in, you willfully obstructed something that might have prevented whatever it was from happening?
Especially in this context, where you are not taking an action due to fear of the reaction of another party? That's a general "you".
it has nothing to do with me.
I'm heavily armed. I can shoot you. I can't shoot a cop, not legally.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
So put yourself in the position of someone who legitimately needs help, then. Unlikely, given that you have a loaded weapon within one arm's distance at times and a legion on wiener dogs, but humor me.
Would you rather your nieghbors have my outlook on this, or yours?
33125
Post by: Seaward
Monster Rain wrote:You need a legal mandate, then? Either way, it's not a matter of you helping, it's a matter of you obstructing others from helping.
Not legally, it isn't. If that were the case, you could be prosecuted for, say, refusing to talk to the police when they were investigating a crime.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Legal retribution isn't the only concern voiced by the "I don't want to get involved" crowd. My point is that inaction can have consequences as well.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Monster Rain wrote:So put yourself in the position of someone who legitimately needs help, then. Unlikely, given that you have a loaded weapon within one arm's distance at times and a legion on wiener dogs, but humor me.
Would you rather your nieghbors have my outlook on this, or yours?
They would be blaming the cops. If there's an emergency situation if the cops are dicking around with the neighbors you've got issues way worse then me not letting them in the house.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Monster Rain wrote:Legal retribution isn't the only concern voiced by the "I don't want to get involved" crowd. My point is that inaction can have consequences as well.
It's my concern. Both residents of my household are gun owners with concealed carry permits. One of those guns (not mine, for the record) is frequently purse carried. Said purse is frequently left on a vanity in the bedroom when the owner is home. I'd simply prefer to avoid a, "Yeah, we'll just be here for a few hours, getting some awesome tactical advantage like in Call of Duty. Nice bedroom y'all have here, and I see you OH GAK HE'S GOT A REMARKABLY FEMININE GUN WITH PURPLE DECORATIVE SLIDE ART JOE QUICK GET THE PEPPER BALLs" situation.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Speaking generally, Frazzled.
Would you rather have neighbors willing to be inconvenienced to possibly help you and your family out, or would you understand when they refused to consider it because they are entitled to do so? Automatically Appended Next Post: Seaward wrote: Monster Rain wrote:Legal retribution isn't the only concern voiced by the "I don't want to get involved" crowd. My point is that inaction can have consequences as well.
It's my concern. Both residents of my household are gun owners with concealed carry permits. One of those guns (not mine, for the record) is frequently purse carried. Said purse is frequently left on a vanity in the bedroom when the owner is home. I'd simply prefer to avoid a, "Yeah, we'll just be here for a few hours, getting some awesome tactical advantage like in Call of Duty. Nice bedroom y'all have here, and I see you OH GAK HE'S GOT A REMARKABLY FEMININE GUN WITH PURPLE DECORATIVE SLIDE ART JOE QUICK GET THE PEPPER BALLs" situation.
As a gun owner myself, this kind of magical thinking makes me cringe.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Monster Rain wrote:Speaking generally, Frazzled.
Would you rather have neighbors willing to be inconvenienced to possibly help you and your family out, or would you understand when they refused to consider it because they are entitled to do so?
You'll have to bring up a scenario where my help in an emergency situation would be helpful.
33125
Post by: Seaward
I've been drawn on and patted down for being polite and informing the officer who pulled me for a rolling stop at a stop sign that I was carrying - something I had no duty to do. The whole drawn gun and patdown was just for his safety, you understand.
feth that noise, dude, and feth the "magical thinking" bs. Live where I live and then talk.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
d-usa wrote:The threat they were responding to was so imminent that they couldn't bother to break down the door and stop the domestic abuse situation, but important enough to bust down the door at the neighbors house to monitor the situation that didn't require the busting of doors itself.
Did I get that right?
Pretty much, but you did leave out the part were the Police also had the time to coax another homeowner out of his house, unlawfully detain him, then proceed to unlawfully detain his wife, and search their house and property. Clearly the initial domestic situation the Police were called out for was of the utmost urgency....
 SilverMK2 wrote:This always brings me back to thinking about what right does one have to protect oneself against actions by LEO's acting illegally.
Go along with them, don't resist or run your mouth, get a lawyer, sue
Monster Rain wrote:I'll try one more time.
In this case refusal may have been warranted. My issue is with simply saying "No cops in my house ever, for no other reason than I have the right to refuse".
So you take issue with people exercising their lawful right? If there is a legitimate reason for them to require your home they will have/be able to acquire a warrant. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:A bomb in a domestic dispute? THEY DIDN"T SAY THAT. Come on Josephus that dog don't hunt.
PLus there would have been lots of flashing lights, bomb squad etc. etc. The plaintiffs would have been very very aware.
If there was a bomb they would have been telling the homeowners to leave because of the risk of injury or damage to property - not because they need to be near a potential bomb to set up a command post.
Worst case they would have been able to obtain a warrant very easily
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Frazzled wrote: Monster Rain wrote:Speaking generally, Frazzled.
Would you rather have neighbors willing to be inconvenienced to possibly help you and your family out, or would you understand when they refused to consider it because they are entitled to do so?
You'll have to bring up a scenario where my help in an emergency situation would be helpful.
That's kind of the opposite of general, isn't it?
How about the scenario outlined in the OP, but with ample evidence that someone in your house has a reasonable expectation of being killed or seriously injured and law enforcement officials have a legitimate need to gain access to some of your neighbors houses for a tactical advantage.
If they're doing it to troll the cops out of a sense of entitlement, maybe I do. Still, that's a bit of an oversimplification of what we are talking about here. One might even call it an easily dismissed caricature of my position. There's another word for that...
Dreadclaw69 wrote:If there is a legitimate reason for them to require your home they will have/be able to acquire a warrant.
Whatever, man. I just hope no one is playing strict RAW when they are in a position to help a LEO help you.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Wait a second. We live in a world where things like the OP happen, and you're calling this absurd?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Seaward wrote:
I've been drawn on and patted down for being polite and informing the officer who pulled me for a rolling stop at a stop sign that I was carrying - something I had no duty to do. The whole drawn gun and patdown was just for his safety, you understand.
feth that noise, dude, and feth the "magical thinking" bs. Live where I live and then talk.
Word.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
daedalus wrote:
Wait a second. We live in a world where things like the OP happen, and you're calling this absurd?
What, that a gun is a magical amulet that protects you from danger at all times? Or that you'll be arrested for a gun you have a legal permit for? And frankly, now that it's up for discussion, leaving a loaded firearm laying around the house is pretty terrible gun safety. It's not a terribly smart thing to do even if it is unloaded.
Yes, that is absurd.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Seaward wrote:
I've been drawn on and patted down for being polite and informing the officer who pulled me for a rolling stop at a stop sign that I was carrying - something I had no duty to do. The whole drawn gun and patdown was just for his safety, you understand.
feth that noise, dude, and feth the "magical thinking" bs. Live where I live and then talk.
Word.
That cop sounds like an ass.
I question the relevance of the anecdote.
70365
Post by: Gentleman_Jellyfish
Monster Rain wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote:If there is a legitimate reason for them to require your home they will have/be able to acquire a warrant.
Whatever, man. I just hope no one is playing strict RAW when they are in a position to help a LEO help you.
So does this mean the argument is over? As long as nobody here is a hypocrite in regards to letting LEOs gain access to their homes?
33125
Post by: Seaward
You apparently missed the point of the anecdote. It isn't that a gun's a magical amulet that protects you at all times, it's that cops who at absolute best infrequently encounter lawfully-owned firearms in a strongly liberal town have a tendency to overreact when encountering one, and that I'd rather not run the risk of getting OC'd for allowing cops into my house where they can eyeball search no matter what other errand they might be on, however well-intentioned it is, because both myself and my girlfriend own guns, and as we have no children and no children visit us, there's a decent chance one would be visible somewhere.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Monster Rain wrote:If they're doing it to troll the cops out of a sense of entitlement, maybe I do. Still, that's a bit of an oversimplification of what we are talking about here. One might even call it an easily dismissed caricature of my position. There's another word for that...
The phrase is "factually correct", you are taking objection to homeowners having the right to refuse access to others when there is no indication of urgency or imminent risk.
Monster Rain wrote:Whatever, man. I just hope no one is playing strict RAW when they are in a position to help a LEO help you.
People already have and I don't hold it against them. I can fully understand not wanting to involve yourself in certain situations.
Their property, they are entitled do do with it as they see fit within the law. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:So does this mean the argument is over? As long as nobody here is a hypocrite in regards to letting LEOs gain access to their homes?
As long as the Police have an actual lawful and legitimate reason for accessing my home I have no objection
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Monster Rain wrote:If they're doing it to troll the cops out of a sense of entitlement, maybe I do. Still, that's a bit of an oversimplification of what we are talking about here. One might even call it an easily dismissed caricature of my position. There's another word for that...
The phrase is "factually correct", you are taking objection to homeowners having the right to refuse access to others when there is no indication of urgency or imminent risk.
Ah, so you aren't reading what I'm typing.
12313
Post by: Ouze
What strange bedfellows this thread has wrought. If there is a previous thread where I agreed with Frazzled and Seaward, and disagreed with Sebster; it is unknown to me.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Monster Rain wrote: daedalus wrote:
Wait a second. We live in a world where things like the OP happen, and you're calling this absurd?
What, that a gun is a magical amulet that protects you from danger at all times?
Yes, that is absurd.
I didn't see anywhere that he said that. I saw him saying that he was afraid the police would find a gun and, rather than concern themselves with whether it's legal or not (or better, concern themselves specifically with whatever the feth they claim they're doing there to begin with) they overreact first and ask questions later.
Thus, the above is hardly absurd, given that we're discussing this in a thread where we learned that the police overreacted to a man refusing entry into his home, showing that the police ARE capable of overreacting in situations.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Ouze wrote:What strange bedfellows this thread has wrought. If there is a previous thread where I agreed with Frazzled and Seaward, and disagreed with Sebster; it is unknown to me.
Welcome to the dark side.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
daedalus wrote:I didn't see anywhere that he said that. I saw him saying that he was afraid the police would find a gun and, rather than concern themselves with whether it's legal or not (or better, concern themselves specifically with whatever the feth they claim they're doing there to begin with) they overreact first and ask questions later.
Thus, the above is hardly absurd, given that we're discussing this in a thread where we learned that the police overreacted to a man refusing entry into his home, showing that the police ARE capable of overreacting in situations.
Again, we're getting away from the fact that I was speaking from a point of principle.
I guess the overriding theme here is that we should be able to trust LEOs more than we do as a society, but many of them make it hard to do so.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
The plain sight doctrine, which I still agree with, is what has created the problem with police cooperation.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Monster Rain wrote:
I guess the overriding theme here is that we should be able to trust LEOs more than we do as a society, but many of them make it hard to do so.
That I can certainly agree with.
9407
Post by: Lint
Ouze wrote:What strange bedfellows this thread has wrought. If there is a previous thread where I agreed with Frazzled and Seaward, and disagreed with Sebster; it is unknown to me.
Agreed. I found myself exalting many posts in this one. I'm encouraged that Dakka has so many concise defenders of personal liberty.
I understand the broad point that MonsterRain is trying to defend, however in this instance (with the information on available) it seems to be a gross trespass and abuse of authority.
221
Post by: Frazzled
How about the scenario outlined in the OP, but with ample evidence that someone in your house has a reasonable expectation of being killed or seriously injured and law enforcement officials have a legitimate need to gain access to some of your neighbors houses for a tactical advantage.
How would that help again?
in the OP they said domestic dispute. Thats not a hostage situation. Thats nothing to do with needing to be in your house.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
daedalus wrote: Monster Rain wrote:
I guess the overriding theme here is that we should be able to trust LEOs more than we do as a society, but many of them make it hard to do so.
That I can certainly agree with.
I would go further to say that the fact that a perceived lack of accountability for when they do overstep their bounds is causing what seems to be a growing number of people to avoid assisting them out of concern for their personal safety, not just from criminals but from the police themselves. I'm not saying it's unreasonable to be distrustful of police in some situations. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:How about the scenario outlined in the OP, but with ample evidence that someone in your house has a reasonable expectation of being killed or seriously injured and law enforcement officials have a legitimate need to gain access to some of your neighbors houses for a tactical advantage.
How would that help again?
in the OP they said domestic dispute. Thats not a hostage situation. Thats nothing to do with needing to be in your house.
I believe the term "standoff" was used, was it not?
That term carries certain connotations that can explain people not wanting to simply kick the door in.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Seaward wrote: Ouze wrote:What strange bedfellows this thread has wrought. If there is a previous thread where I agreed with Frazzled and Seaward, and disagreed with Sebster; it is unknown to me.
Welcome to the dark side.
They all float down here.... Automatically Appended Next Post: I would go further to say that the fact that a perceived lack of accountability for when they do overstep their bounds is causing what seems to be a growing number of people to avoid assisting them out of concern for their personal safety, not just from criminals but from the police themselves. I'm not saying it's unreasonable to be distrustful of police in some situations.
You have just now pegged me to a T. My position on the Justice System Industrial Complex have ebbed and flowed over the years, but has recently hardened quite a bit. I know cops. I shoot with them (remember, the safeest place to be in a shoot out is right in front of a cop hahahah). The wife and I have been pulled over by them. Some suck. Some are excellent. Most are along the normal bell curve and just tryign to get through the day like everyone else on the planet. But the policies and culture have changed. I'm seeing a lot more of the "LA mentality" now, and that is not a good thing.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Monster Rain wrote:Again, we're getting away from the fact that I was speaking from a point of principle.
I guess the overriding theme here is that we should be able to trust LEOs more than we do as a society, but many of them make it hard to do so.
I'm still waiting to hear your elaboration on this "magical thinking" about a gun being a "protective amulet" that I apparently exhibited when expressing my desire not to put myself in a position to have cops massively overreact to something legal in a thread about cops massively overreacting to something legal.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
While you are pulled over, you are under detainment. When you are under detainment, your right to carry is curtailed a bit in that an officer can secure any scene he's dealing with for his safety. It shouldn't be that shocking that you get pulled out and patted down when you say you have a gun.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Why? if he's a legal permit holder there is no heightened status at that point.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Many cops are able to act pretty rationally when you tell them that you are legally carrying.
Most cops here either don't care if you are carrying, or it is a simple:
Cop: Where are you carrying
Me: Front right pocket
Cop: Don't reach for your front right pocket please
Me: No problem
221
Post by: Frazzled
d-usa wrote:Many cops are able to act pretty rationally when you tell them that you are legally carrying.
Most cops here either don't care if you are carrying, or it is a simple:
Cop: Where are you carrying
Me: Front right pocket
Cop: Don't reach for your front right pocket please
Me: No problem
In Texas you are required to tell them you are a CHLer, even though it comes up when they run the license. Texas also is a right to have a weapon in your vehicle state without any certificate. Typically in Texas (outside of Austin and certain smaller locales in SA and Dallas), you inform them and thats the end of it.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Rented Tritium wrote:While you are pulled over, you are under detainment. When you are under detainment, your right to carry is curtailed a bit in that an officer can secure any scene he's dealing with for his safety. It shouldn't be that shocking that you get pulled out and patted down when you say you have a gun.
Ah, excellent, let's confuse the issue more.
The point wasn't that I'm particularly concerned about getting pulled over again. The question was asked why I wouldn't consent to allow police into my house without a warrant. I provided the reason, aside from general principal: I'd be concerned about an overreaction if they saw one of our guns, or an ammo box in trash, or mistook the mint plant in the little balcony garden for a weed plant, for that matter.
Monster Rain felt this was "magical thinking," I provided a similar personally-experienced example of police overreaction. So, the issue isn't the stop, it's the presented hypothetical.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
d-usa wrote:Many cops are able to act pretty rationally when you tell them that you are legally carrying.
Most cops here either don't care if you are carrying, or it is a simple:
Cop: Where are you carrying
Me: Front right pocket
Cop: Don't reach for your front right pocket please
Me: No problem
Yep. This is the best way to handle it. If you're in a car, expect to get called out of the car and stand where they can see you as well.
33125
Post by: Seaward
d-usa wrote:Many cops are able to act pretty rationally when you tell them that you are legally carrying.
Most cops here either don't care if you are carrying, or it is a simple:
Cop: Where are you carrying
Me: Front right pocket
Cop: Don't reach for your front right pocket please
Me: No problem
Many are, yes. Some are not. Why chance it when there's no legal requirement to do so?
Hey, that's sort of my argument for not allowing cops into the house, too. Why chance it when there's no legal requirement to do so? Automatically Appended Next Post: Rented Tritium wrote:Yep. This is the best way to handle it. If you're in a car, expect to get called out of the car and stand where they can see you as well.
I simply don't tell them I'm carrying. Much easier and efficient.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Seaward wrote: Monster Rain wrote:Again, we're getting away from the fact that I was speaking from a point of principle.
I guess the overriding theme here is that we should be able to trust LEOs more than we do as a society, but many of them make it hard to do so.
I'm still waiting to hear your elaboration on this "magical thinking" about a gun being a "protective amulet" that I apparently exhibited when expressing my desire not to put myself in a position to have cops massively overreact to something legal in a thread about cops massively overreacting to something legal.
Meh, I thought you were making two statements with that post.
I understand the point you were making, and maybe read something else into your post that wasn't there.
Seaward wrote:
The point wasn't that I'm particularly concerned about getting pulled over again. The question was asked why I wouldn't consent to allow police into my house without a warrant. I provided the reason, aside from general principal: I'd be concerned about an overreaction if they saw one of our guns, or an ammo box in trash, or mistook the mint plant in the little balcony garden for a weed plant, for that matter.
You know, even if they had a warrant there would still be a chance they'd see these things.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Rented Tritium wrote: d-usa wrote:Many cops are able to act pretty rationally when you tell them that you are legally carrying.
Most cops here either don't care if you are carrying, or it is a simple:
Cop: Where are you carrying
Me: Front right pocket
Cop: Don't reach for your front right pocket please
Me: No problem
Yep. This is the best way to handle it. If you're in a car, expect to get called out of the car and stand where they can see you as well.
I've not experienced that. I have experienced where the wife and the cop got into an extended discussion on good pistols for de wimminz. This would normally be cool but I was in dire need of recycling about a quart of tea at the time.
12313
Post by: Ouze
You know... I'm not so sure this is a bad case for the third amendment, really. While the constitution says "soldiers"; in the context of the time - wasn't this a catchall for the state? Weren't the Redcoats responsible for enforcing at least some laws, like the Townshend act - is it likely there is a meaningful distinction here?
The comments in Griswold vs Connecticut seem to support this line of thinking a little, too.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I'm actually thinking that LEO agency are somewhat semi-military that they can fall under the Third Amendment. Its not much of stretch of the imagination. Same weapons...well their main weapons are handhelds compare to Battle Rifles....Assault Rifles I kid I kid...tacticool gear....minus 1st line APC and MBT's. I do know a lot of LEO agency received Kiowa's OH-58's from the Army when we started implementing the Kiowa Warrior...M16's as we convert to the M4...GFYI the M4 range is like 100m short of the M16..though I will admit I rather them to have our IOTV vest's but I hear the Dragonscale vest is on par with ours. I've a feeling its going to go to SCOTUS du to definition of "soldiers"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Granted...in our life time...this probably be the only 3rd Amendment trial we ever see in the US...times we live in
5470
Post by: sebster
Peregrine wrote:To be fair, a right to privacy only matters if you can say no. If you're socially obligated to say yes then your right doesn't have very much value.
If you're socially obligated if you have no good personal reason.
It could pretty reasonably be argued that anyone has a good reason to deny access, since there's a very real possibility that something you think is innocent could be interpreted as evidence the police are looking for in some case you've never even heard of (for example, they think you have stolen property). With that in mind the best policy is to never talk to the police without a lawyer or allow them access to your property.
I don't think there's going to be too many instances of police spotting something that the person didn't know was illegal. I don't, for instance, think the police are so expert in their jobs that they can identify on sight stolen goods that have been fenced to the homeowner.
I mean, really, when it comes to things the police might spot, we're talking about drugs. And then the homeowner will know full well that they're illegal, and then tell the police quite sensibly that they can't use the house.
Of course this could easily be avoided by throwing out any evidence (short of a dead body/bomb/etc) that the police find if they request access to private property in a situation like this. In that case you wouldn't have a reasonable objection because once the emergency power is invoked you could no longer suffer any legal harm from allowing the police to enter. But I guess it's more important to ensure that you can send someone to jail if you happen to see a bag of pot on the table.
That's a possibly. Or we can accept that folk with pot in their house will reject the police, while those without pot really should let the police use the house.
It's short-term for the immediate occupation, but there's a much broader issue with living in a society where the police can ignore property rights any time they like. It's like with all the various questionably-legal spying the US government has been doing, most people will never suffer even the slightest practical impact from it, but that doesn't stop it from being a disturbing lack of privacy that the government can spy on you without a warrant as long as they call you a terrorist first.
But no-one is saying the police can ignore property rights. Everyone here accepts the police have to ask, and if rejected they have to respect that.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Seaward wrote: Ouze wrote:What strange bedfellows this thread has wrought. If there is a previous thread where I agreed with Frazzled and Seaward, and disagreed with Sebster; it is unknown to me.
Welcome to the dark side.
We have snacks! and a ton of weiner dogs....
Ouze wrote:You know... I'm not so sure this is a bad case for the third amendment, really. While the constitution says "soldiers"; in the context of the time - wasn't this a catchall for the state? Weren't the Redcoats responsible for enforcing at least some laws, like the Townshend act - is it likely there is a meaningful distinction here?
The comments in Griswold vs Connecticut seem to support this line of thinking a little, too.
Wait, there might actually be a 3rd Amendment case here? Seriously?
....damn.
Never thought I'd see that.
Also I just found out my buddy The Baron (non-dakkanaut) knows the Mitchell family fairly well. If I get cool inside updates I'll be sure to share.
5470
Post by: sebster
Steve steveson wrote:No, I was pointing out that you are wrong. Your saying people don't have a moral right to refuse the police use of there house.
You're still not reading what I've said. I said absent a good reason people don't have a moral right to deny the police use of their house. This is a waste of time. and I mean properly read, not just make up what you THINK I have said, you will see I am disagreeing with the idea that the police have a moral right to enter your house whatever the situation.
And if you'd read the thread, or even just read my first post before you tried to argue with me, you'd have seen I said your obligation to let the police in exists absent a good reason not to. But whatever. You don't want to read, and this is a waste of time. Your making up what you think people are saying based on your own ideas of them. What people are saying is that the police clearly felt they had a right to enter this persons house.
No, I'm going by the exact words stated by KalashnikovMarine, in which he replied to my statement "That doesn't mean they're not allowed to deny the police the use of their home, but they're most likely being self-entitled nitwits for doing so" with the response; "Tough gak? I honestly don't care. It's not my problem, and it's certainly not worth me opening my home for use by the cops. Unless they have an active hostage situation... oh wait, even then I really couldn't care less." You would know this if you had read the thread. Weasel words and double talk. "police have a moral right to use someones house"... "I am saying that individual's... have a moral obligation to allow the use of their property to help the police" Same difference. Your saying there is a moral obligation on one party therefor justifying the other party's actions to enforce this moral obligation.
No, that isn't what that means at all. You're making gak up. You're pretending that if a person has a moral obligation to do something, then it becomes okay for another person or the state to make that person act in that way, but that isn't true at all. If I walk past a person lying unconscious on the road, and I could drag them off the road with no danger to my own life, then I have a moral obligation to do that. But if I decide I don't want to do that for whatever insanity might exist in my head, then no other party can physically make me do it. Do you get it now? Automatically Appended Next Post: Ouze wrote:I agree with you. Well, partially, anyway - I probably don't agree that you don't have a moral requirement to assist when lives are at stake (and I don't know that is the case, I'm speaking generally). But I think you do have the right to say no, and the cops have to respect that.
Which is all I was saying. If you don't think that's a disturbing precedent to set, I don't know what to say. Either we have the rule of law in this country, or we do not. The victim blaming started early but predictably with this one, huh?
Well, possibly. At this point we have the complaint, and no more. It could be that the facts as stated are the whole of the story in which case the police behaved terribly, but it's also possible there's more to it. Which is why I thought it was best not to comment on the specifics of the case. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Ensis Ferrae wrote:Except in this case there are quite a number of Amendments within the constitution that outline that this sort of situation just cannot legally happen. It's not a "strange fetishisation", it's one of the basic rights that the People granted the Government when we drafted up the constitution.
No. It is not a strange fetishisation to be able to deny the police entry in to your home. That right exists for good reason, and people can and should use it in many situations, for many good reasons. It is a strange fetishisation to blindly insist that right should be enforced at all possible times, simply because it is a right that a person can enforce. Simply put, if there's a hostage situation next door and it's clear the police could gain better control of the situation by accessing your house, and you reject just because it's your house so you can... well you're placing property rights above helping people. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Necroshea wrote:Oh look, cops being thugs again and still some here defend them.
No-one has defended the actions of the cops as detailed in the OP's story. fething read the thread. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ahtman wrote:I would think that any reasonable adult would understand why saying 'no' just because you can in any situation, and saying you would not consider the context of a situation would be pretty evident as to why it is silly on it's face. Sometimes you should say no, sometimes you should say yes, but the circumstances and reason should determine it, not just that you can say no.
Ahtman nails it.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
To be 100% clear on the quote Sebster is so upset about. I have no moral, ethical or legal obligation to expose to any possible reprisal, danger, damages or any thing else that might occur, myself, my family, or my property in any way, shape, or form by allowing police officers to use it as they see fit. It is my home. Not a police barracks, or good place to stick a police marksman, an LP/OP, or like the Cops in the OP apparently a good place to kick your boots up, eat a snack and enjoy the AC if you aren't me or one of my guests.
Chances are if a cop can convince me of the need, and asks nicely, I'll probably help. Hell I might even make lemonade and bake a cake. Show up waving your badge and demanding access to my property, demanding I willingly compromise my safety and privacy? Get stuffed.
5470
Post by: sebster
Ouze wrote:What strange bedfellows this thread has wrought. If there is a previous thread where I agreed with Frazzled and Seaward, and disagreed with Sebster; it is unknown to me.
Well, given your earlier post I'm not sure we're disagreeing. And you missed the strangest one - I'm agreeing with Monster Rain in this thread. Truly the end times are upon us.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
KalashnikovMarine wrote:To be 100% clear on the quote Sebster is so upset about. I have no moral, ethical or legal obligation to expose to any possible reprisal, danger, damages or any thing else that might occur, myself, my family, or my property in any way, shape, or form by allowing police officers to use it as they see fit. It is my home. Not a police barracks, or good place to stick a police marksman, an LP/ OP, or like the Cops in the OP apparently a good place to kick your boots up, eat a snack and enjoy the AC if you aren't me or one of my guests.
Chances are if a cop can convince me of the need, and asks nicely, I'll probably help. Hell I might even make lemonade and bake a cake. Show up waving your badge and demanding access to my property, demanding I willingly compromise my safety and privacy? Get stuffed.
Agreed.
34390
Post by: whembly
sebster wrote: Ouze wrote:What strange bedfellows this thread has wrought. If there is a previous thread where I agreed with Frazzled and Seaward, and disagreed with Sebster; it is unknown to me.
Well, given your earlier post I'm not sure we're disagreeing.
And you missed the strangest one - I'm agreeing with Monster Rain in this thread. Truly the end times are upon us.
Hey! I thought that was when you agreed with me on some things. o.O
When was that?
5470
Post by: sebster
KalashnikovMarine wrote:To be 100% clear on the quote Sebster is so upset about. I have no moral, ethical or legal obligation to expose to any possible reprisal, danger, damages or any thing else that might occur, myself, my family, or my property in any way, shape, or form by allowing police officers to use it as they see fit. It is my home. Not a police barracks, or good place to stick a police marksman, an LP/ OP, or like the Cops in the OP apparently a good place to kick your boots up, eat a snack and enjoy the AC if you aren't me or one of my guests.
Chances are if a cop can convince me of the need, and asks nicely, I'll probably help. Hell I might even make lemonade and bake a cake. Show up waving your badge and demanding access to my property, demanding I willingly compromise my safety and privacy? Get stuffed.
Why didn't you just say that the first time? Instead of all that stuff about saying no even if there was a hostage situation next door.
I mean, it's still weird that you'd say no if the policeman isn't polite, but whatever, at least now you're recognising some kind of sensible thing.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
I still wouldn't /care/. The nature of the situation really doesn't change the really vital factor that I actually care about. Risk to me and mine.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
sebster wrote: Ouze wrote:What strange bedfellows this thread has wrought. If there is a previous thread where I agreed with Frazzled and Seaward, and disagreed with Sebster; it is unknown to me.
Well, given your earlier post I'm not sure we're disagreeing.
And you missed the strangest one - I'm agreeing with Monster Rain in this thread. Truly the end times are upon us.
I was thinking the same thing. 
We've been agreeing a lot lately, now that I think about it. Herb lore and whatnot.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
sebster wrote:I don't think there's going to be too many instances of police spotting something that the person didn't know was illegal. I don't, for instance, think the police are so expert in their jobs that they can identify on sight stolen goods that have been fenced to the homeowner.
I'm not talking about a person suddenly discovering something was illegal, I'm talking about the police making a mistake. For example, maybe one of them thinks they recognize some stuff that was stolen recently because they were involved with the case. Now you're in legal trouble and you'd better hope you saved the receipt. Or let's say there was a robbery recently, you kind of match the description of the suspect, and oh look, that shirt on top of the laundry pile looks like the one the victim described. Even if you're completely innocent you're now a suspect, and you really don't want to be in that position.
But, like I said, this could all be avoided with severe limits (only something as extreme as a dead body/bomb/etc) on what the police can use as evidence if they invoke their emergency power to enter your property. However, in the absence of those limits, it's an entirely rational decision to decide that you will under no circumstances allow the police to enter your property without a warrant.
I mean, really, when it comes to things the police might spot, we're talking about drugs. And then the homeowner will know full well that they're illegal, and then tell the police quite sensibly that they can't use the house.
Or let's say your friend left something out and you didn't know about it. Congratulations, now you're going to jail.
5470
Post by: sebster
Outside of stories that have (R) and (D) at the end of people's names we agree all the time Automatically Appended Next Post: Monster Rain wrote:I was thinking the same thing.
We've been agreeing a lot lately, now that I think about it. Herb lore and whatnot.
I have to admit I read your posts in that herb lore thread and thought 'hey Monster Rain's posts are a lot of fun when he's on my side' Automatically Appended Next Post: Peregrine wrote:I'm not talking about a person suddenly discovering something was illegal, I'm talking about the police making a mistake. For example, maybe one of them thinks they recognize some stuff that was stolen recently because they were involved with the case. Now you're in legal trouble and you'd better hope you saved the receipt. Or let's say there was a robbery recently, you kind of match the description of the suspect, and oh look, that shirt on top of the laundry pile looks like the one the victim described. Even if you're completely innocent you're now a suspect, and you really don't want to be in that position.
I don't know, dude. That just seems a really, really long bow. I mean, 'sure people would be benefitted by my helping, but there's a chance if I let you in that an officer might mistake some piece of property that I bought legally for something that was stolen in a wholly unrelated incident' is a real stretch.
I mean, really, when it comes to things the police might spot, we're talking about drugs. And then the homeowner will know full well that they're illegal, and then tell the police quite sensibly that they can't use the house.
Or let's say your friend left something out and you didn't know about it. Congratulations, now you're going to jail.
Yeah, so you expand that to not only if you you have drugs in plain view, but to also include if you use drugs at all in the house. That's fair enough.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
sebster wrote:I don't know, dude. That just seems a really, really long bow. I mean, 'sure people would be benefitted by my helping, but there's a chance if I let you in that an officer might mistake some piece of property that I bought legally for something that was stolen in a wholly unrelated incident' is a real stretch.
That depends on how much you trust your local police. If you live in the town in the OP I'd say it's pretty reasonable to be afraid that the idiots running the local police department could jump to conclusions and the best thing to do is refuse to have any unnecessary interaction with them. Or, to give another example, if you're black and live in the wrong place I'd certainly understand not wanting to let the police in under any circumstances.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Peregrine wrote:If you live in the town in the OP I'd say it's pretty reasonable to be afraid that the idiots running the local police department could jump to conclusions and the best thing to do is refuse to have any unnecessary interaction with them.
That's always the best policy. Interacting with the police when not required to, the best you can do is break even, but you risk losing. Not interacting with them? You break even, but don't run the risk of losing.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
Or let's say your friend left something out and you didn't know about it. Congratulations, now you're going to jail.
Who the hell would be friends with someone who does something illegal? and moreover, why in earth wouldn't they report said friend to the police...
63000
Post by: Peregrine
 Mr Hyena wrote:Who the hell would be friends with someone who does something illegal? and moreover, why in earth wouldn't they report said friend to the police...
Lots of people. If you can't figure out how someone could be friends with someone who smokes pot, for example, you're really missing something.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
Peregrine wrote: Mr Hyena wrote:Who the hell would be friends with someone who does something illegal? and moreover, why in earth wouldn't they report said friend to the police...
Lots of people. If you can't figure out how someone could be friends with someone who smokes pot, for example, you're really missing something.
The fact that they haven't informed the police that their friend is breaking the law speaks much of their moral character. Its that sort in lazy, selfishness that is causing society as a whole to deteriorate. Would you not inform the police if they murdered someone?
I'm willing to bet a significant number of these police officers who act like rogues where caused through years of being held back by red tape and a lack of support by the public at large. Years of this can really change a persons outlook and behaviour.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Mr Hyena wrote:
The fact that they haven't informed the police that their friend is breaking the law speaks much of their moral character. Its that sort in lazy, selfishness that is causing society as a whole to deteriorate.
So if you see one of your friends smoking a joint you call the cops on him?
If you see one of your friends speeding or breaking ANY traffic law you call the cops on them?
Do you call the cops on your friends when they throw a piece of paper on the floor instead of the trash can as well? How about if they jaywalk?
You must be a really swell guy to know!
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
So if you see one of your friends smoking a joint you call the cops on him?
If you see one of your friends speeding or breaking ANY traffic law you call the cops on them?
Do you call the cops on your friends when they throw a piece of paper on the floor instead of the trash can as well? How about if they jaywalk?
You must be a really swell guy to know!
I take it you would never report a friend for: theft, murder, terrorism, rape, etc?
Law is the law no matter how trivial.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Mr Hyena wrote:So if you see one of your friends smoking a joint you call the cops on him?
If you see one of your friends speeding or breaking ANY traffic law you call the cops on them?
Do you call the cops on your friends when they throw a piece of paper on the floor instead of the trash can as well? How about if they jaywalk?
You must be a really swell guy to know!
I take it you would never report a friend for: theft, murder, terrorism, rape, etc?
Law is the law no matter how trivial.
At this point, for your sake, I really, really hope that you are just trying to troll everyone.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Mr Hyena wrote:The fact that they haven't informed the police that their friend is breaking the law speaks much of their moral character. Its that sort in lazy, selfishness that is causing society as a whole to deteriorate. Would you not inform the police if they murdered someone?
Can you really not see the difference between a minor victimless "crime" like smoking pot and murder?
I'm willing to bet a significant number of these police officers who act like rogues where caused through years of being held back by red tape and a lack of support by the public at large. Years of this can really change a persons outlook and behaviour.
Too bad. If they can't handle the job they should quit. Their frustration with not being able to enforce the law to their own satisfaction does not justify abusing their power, just like I'm not justified in shooting my neighbor because I'm tired of them playing loud music and the police won't put them in prison.
And legalism is not a valid ethical system.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
Can you really not see the difference between a minor victimless "crime" like smoking pot and murder?
Same justification could be applied to anything. Smoking pot leaves the smoker a victim, and anyone else who has to breathe it in. If we pick and choose which laws to follow, why follow any?
Too bad. If they can't handle the job they should quit. Their frustration with not being able to enforce the law to their own satisfaction does not justify abusing their power, just like I'm not justified in shooting my neighbor because I'm tired of them playing loud music and the police won't put them in prison.
Of course it doesn't justify it. Why bother doing the job's duties however.
And legalism is not a valid ethical system.
Neither is the absence of all morals and ethics.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
No it can't, because the justification for reporting a murderer is based on the fact that murder harms another person, while the justification for reporting a pot smoker is based entirely on blind obedience to the law.
Smoking pot leaves the smoker a victim, and anyone else who has to breathe it in.
Sorry, but all the evidence is against you. Smoking pot is no worse than smoking cigarettes (which is completely legal), so any attempt at justifying punishment based on self-inflicted "harm" is a joke. And of course that's on top of the absurdity of throwing someone in prison for damaging their health. I'm pretty sure that spending time in prison is going to be far worse for someone than the effects of smoking pot.
Also, it's not exactly hard to go smoke outside where nobody else has to breathe it in, just like people have found ways of having social groups that contain both people who smoke cigarettes and people who do not.
If we pick and choose which laws to follow, why follow any?
Is the concept of an unjust law really that hard to understand?
Neither is the absence of all morals and ethics.
Do you really not understand that there's a big difference between not reporting your friends to the police over minor "crimes" and having a complete absence of morals and ethics?
221
Post by: Frazzled
KalashnikovMarine wrote:To be 100% clear on the quote Sebster is so upset about. I have no moral, ethical or legal obligation to expose to any possible reprisal, danger, damages or any thing else that might occur, myself, my family, or my property in any way, shape, or form by allowing police officers to use it as they see fit. It is my home. Not a police barracks, or good place to stick a police marksman, an LP/ OP, or like the Cops in the OP apparently a good place to kick your boots up, eat a snack and enjoy the AC if you aren't me or one of my guests.
Chances are if a cop can convince me of the need, and asks nicely, I'll probably help. Hell I might even make lemonade and bake a cake. Show up waving your badge and demanding access to my property, demanding I willingly compromise my safety and privacy? Get stuffed.
KM has the way of it. Automatically Appended Next Post: Mr Hyena wrote:Or let's say your friend left something out and you didn't know about it. Congratulations, now you're going to jail.
Who the hell would be friends with someone who does something illegal? and moreover, why in earth wouldn't they report said friend to the police...
Do you always obey ALL traffic laws? Automatically Appended Next Post: Mr Hyena wrote:So if you see one of your friends smoking a joint you call the cops on him?
If you see one of your friends speeding or breaking ANY traffic law you call the cops on them?
Do you call the cops on your friends when they throw a piece of paper on the floor instead of the trash can as well? How about if they jaywalk?
You must be a really swell guy to know!
I take it you would never report a friend for: theft, murder, terrorism, rape, etc?
Law is the law no matter how trivial.
Wow, and I thought I was an all black and white kind of guy. 
12313
Post by: Ouze
PhantomViper wrote: Mr Hyena wrote:
The fact that they haven't informed the police that their friend is breaking the law speaks much of their moral character. Its that sort in lazy, selfishness that is causing society as a whole to deteriorate.
So if you see one of your friends smoking a joint you call the cops on him?
If you see one of your friends speeding or breaking ANY traffic law you call the cops on them?
Do you call the cops on your friends when they throw a piece of paper on the floor instead of the trash can as well? How about if they jaywalk?
Mr Hyena wrote:I take it you would never report a friend for: theft, murder, terrorism, rape, etc?
Law is the law no matter how trivial.
Thank god. That whole thing with all these people agreeing with each other who would not normally be, and expanding upon their opinions in stances in ways best described as "reasonable"... I almost forgot where I was for a moment. Thankfully someone came along to conflate the most minor misdemeanors in our criminal justice system with capital murder and terrorism to remind me.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Peregrine wrote:
No it can't, because the justification for reporting a murderer is based on the fact that murder harms another person, while the justification for reporting a pot smoker is based entirely on blind obedience to the law.
There most definitely are victims in any drug related scenario. If you look through the rose colored glasses and ONLY look at the smoker, sure there's no harm no foul. But what about the money that bought those drugs? Now it's in a tunnel heading towards cartels or other wicked bad groups out there who commit things like murder.
I'm not saying that you should report every pot smoker you've ever smelt, but if you witness a deal going down you should definitely report it. It's also not blind obedience to the law, especially since (having been witness to someone reported drug use) LEOs generally will not move anywhere if you say that a group of people are clearly using pot (or other drugs).
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
That is a circular argument.
If drugs were not illegal, the money paid for them would not be going to criminals.
91
Post by: Hordini
Mr Hyena wrote:
I'm willing to bet a significant number of these police officers who act like rogues where caused through years of being held back by red tape and a lack of support by the public at large. Years of this can really change a persons outlook and behaviour.
This sounds like a buddy cop film waiting to happen. Maybe you should pitch your idea to Hollywood? I hear remakes are big right now.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Surely it would be more straight forward to get them on regular criminal charges instead of the whole 3rd amendment thing?
37231
Post by: d-usa
This thread managed to go full stupid, now I can get popcorn.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
Is the concept of an unjust law really that hard to understand?
"injustice" is a word used by the guilty.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Mr Hyena wrote:Is the concept of an unjust law really that hard to understand?
"injustice" is a word used by the guilty.
Oh yea he be trollin! 
11029
Post by: Ketara
Mr Hyena wrote:Is the concept of an unjust law really that hard to understand?
"injustice" is a word used by the guilty.
Sorry, but you're just coming off as some sort of extremely facist Judge Dredd cross right now.
Then again, considering what I recall of your previous arguments and political leanings, I can't say I'm entirely surprised.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
 Ketara wrote: Mr Hyena wrote:Is the concept of an unjust law really that hard to understand?
"injustice" is a word used by the guilty.
Sorry, but you're just coming off as some sort of extremely facist Judge Dredd cross right now.
Then again, considering what I recall of your previous arguments and political leanings, I can't say I'm entirely surprised.
I know Judge Dredd is intended as satire, but honestly, its actually a good political/social structure to adopt in context of a rising population.
37231
Post by: d-usa
The only Fascism I support is Dakka Fascism.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
Edit: User was baned for this post.
221
Post by: Frazzled
BANE!!!!
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Mr Hyena wrote: Ketara wrote: Mr Hyena wrote:Is the concept of an unjust law really that hard to understand?
"injustice" is a word used by the guilty.
Sorry, but you're just coming off as some sort of extremely facist Judge Dredd cross right now.
Then again, considering what I recall of your previous arguments and political leanings, I can't say I'm entirely surprised.
I know Judge Dredd is intended as satire, but honestly, its actually a good political/social structure to adopt in context of a rising population.
Troll like typing detected.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
I think he actually thinks that way.
It's astounding I know.
19370
Post by: daedalus
I can't decide if that would make it more appalling, or less.
53059
Post by: dæl
Mr Hyena wrote:Is the concept of an unjust law really that hard to understand?
"injustice" is a word used by the guilty.
So the Birmingham 6 were guilty then? Despite being fitted up by a police unit so corrupt and notorious for fabricating evidence that they had to be disbanded.
How about Jane Cobden who was elected to a Council seat in 1891, and was charged with being an improper person to hold office as she was a woman? Despite the fact that as a woman she was not, at that time, legally a person so couldn't be charged as an improper person.
If we should be reporting all crimes should I report your post to the police, as it causes "alarm and distress" to me at the implications of what you believe? This makes you guilty of a crime, and by your logic that all crimes are equally abhorrent that must be pretty distressing for you, meaning I am also guilty of the same crime. See how silly things get when the law is involved. That's why it is best to have a sense of morality separate from whatever statutes are drafted into law.
On topic- Rather than the Third Amendment, would this not be covered under "illegal search and seizure"? I guess if 3rd Amendment cases are rare it gives it more publicity.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Yup, guilty of being Irish it seems
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Ah yes, guilt by Irishness, my great-grandfather got chased from Ireland for such high crimes against the crown.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
That's why internment was frequently referred to as "Being detained on suspicion of being Irish". Oh, and a riot is three or more people standing in a group in public
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Well you know how it is, two Irishmen's a brawl, three Irishmen's a riot, any more then that is an IRA cell.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
Mr Hyena wrote:Is the concept of an unjust law really that hard to understand?
"injustice" is a word used by the guilty.
Well. I know quite a few things. 
I knew of a story of where a cop ordered a 10 year old boy to clean his car...
http://rt.com/usa/taser-boy-playground-webb-611/
Injustice my friend. The whole bloody world is reeking with injustice. There is only justice from the dead. Any system we create is corrupted by human kind. All systems are abused and used for unjust means.
Injustice is the word used by those that cry out against oppressiveness.
Now run along.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Well you know how it is, two Irishmen's a brawl, three Irishmen's a riot, any more then that is an IRA cell.
Hehehe
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Ah yes, guilt by Irishness, my great-grandfather got chased from Ireland for such high crimes against the crown.
Was his name Stephen?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Good one Ensis
5470
Post by: sebster
Man, I thought the thing about not police in to your house for no good reason was weird, but now this.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
See, I don't mind arguing a point here and there, but there's no reason to engage with obvious dumbassery.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
There's like no rebuttal from LEO on this. Its like they're sticking their heads in the sand hoping it goes away. Mostly though I'm curious how far up it will go
5470
Post by: sebster
Monster Rain wrote:See, I don't mind arguing a point here and there, but there's no reason to engage with obvious dumbassery.
Yeah, but it's a rabbit hole, man. You read an initial claim that's a bit extreme, but doesn't indicate the real depth of the crazy, so you comment on it just to apply what you think is a common sense, logical limit to that that everyone can agree on, and then they reject that limit, so you suggest another limit that surely everyone can agree on, and they reject that, and so on and so on until you're arguing with someone who's now saying Judge Dredd is what we need in this day and age. Reading through the conversation everyone can see it is obvious dumbassery, but if you were there at the start you didn't know.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I'm going to um...stoop down.....why are you giving Judge Dread any credibility here? I pretty much ignore the comment when Judge Dred is in the reply....Same as owning nukes, landmines, flame throwers and other serious hardware in gun threads.
15447
Post by: rubiksnoob
Mr Hyena wrote: Ketara wrote: Mr Hyena wrote:Is the concept of an unjust law really that hard to understand?
"injustice" is a word used by the guilty.
Sorry, but you're just coming off as some sort of extremely facist Judge Dredd cross right now.
Then again, considering what I recall of your previous arguments and political leanings, I can't say I'm entirely surprised.
I know Judge Dredd is intended as satire, but honestly, its actually a good political/social structure to adopt in context of a rising population.
27391
Post by: purplefood
 rubiksnoob wrote: Mr Hyena wrote: Ketara wrote: Mr Hyena wrote:Is the concept of an unjust law really that hard to understand?
"injustice" is a word used by the guilty.
Sorry, but you're just coming off as some sort of extremely facist Judge Dredd cross right now.
Then again, considering what I recall of your previous arguments and political leanings, I can't say I'm entirely surprised.
I know Judge Dredd is intended as satire, but honestly, its actually a good political/social structure to adopt in context of a rising population.
This one time I accidentally 30 million spiderman judge dredd
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Flamethrowers are in fact legal in most U.S. States, so knock yourself out on that note.
5470
Post by: sebster
 Jihadin wrote:I'm going to um...stoop down.....why are you giving Judge Dread any credibility here? I pretty much ignore the comment when Judge Dred is in the reply....Same as owning nukes, landmines, flame throwers and other serious hardware in gun threads.
Sorry, were you asking me that question?
I'm not giving Judge Dredd any credibility. I was giving my sympathy to the people who got caught up arguing with him. Because I've been there, quite a few times just recently. Because you read their first comment and you think 'oh they aren't as extreme as that sounds, obviously they just didn't spend time fleshing out the logical limit to what they're claiming' and so you respond, looking to get that limit. But they reject that limit, and the next, and the next, and before you know you're trying to explain to someone why pot might be illegal, but you don't actually have to report your friends to the police for smoking it. It's a rabbit hole, you have no idea how deep it is goes when you start.
tldr - no credibility for Judge Dredd, and a lot of sympathy for the posters who got trapped in to trying to reason with him.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Was the power level over 9000, and was he a really cool guy and doesn't afraid of anything?
|
|
