Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.

 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

 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.

Still, the dog was cowering. It didnt do anything to the cops. Also, since when do the cops car so much about domestice abuse?

 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.

 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.

 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.

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?

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.

 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.

 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.

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.

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.

 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".

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?

 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).

 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.

I just edited my post but I missed your response.

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.

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?

 Frazzled wrote:
Why do you have an issue with that?

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.

 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.

 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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Why do you have an issue with that?

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."

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Why do you have an issue with that?

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.

 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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Why do you have an issue with that?

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Why do you have an issue with that?

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:

 Frazzled wrote:
Why do you have an issue with that?

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?

 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.

 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.