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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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".

 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.

 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:

 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.

of course the Briitsh troops didn't tazer your dog and send you to jail either...

 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."

 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....

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.

 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

 Monster Rain wrote:

Then you aren't reading very closely.

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.

 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.

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?

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 Monster Rain wrote:
As a gun owner myself, this kind of magical thinking makes me cringe.

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.

 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

 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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So you take issue with people exercising their lawful right?.

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.

 Monster Rain wrote:


As a gun owner myself, this kind of magical thinking makes me cringe.

Wait a second. We live in a world where things like the OP happen, and you're calling this absurd?

 Seaward wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
As a gun owner myself, this kind of magical thinking makes me cringe.

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.

 daedalus wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:


As a gun owner myself, this kind of magical thinking makes me cringe.

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:

 Monster Rain wrote:
As a gun owner myself, this kind of magical thinking makes me cringe.

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.

 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?

 Monster Rain wrote:

That cop sounds like an ass.

I question the relevance of the anecdote.

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.

 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

 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.

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.