It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man Tells Cops They Can't Search His Home Without A Warrant, Cops Kick His Door Down & Kill Him

page: 11
85
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: jonnywhite
a reply to: infolurker
An alarming indication of the thoughtlessness and hostility of our police and saddening if true. Unfortunatley he can't be brought back. A man lived right and had some kids and now he's gone. His children will be without their father. Later they'll ask what happend. Killed by cops.

EDIT: If the cops are somhow in the right then please forgive my reply. I'm not a cop hater. I have utmost respect for a law abiding cop.

Very important, these "if's". Very important.




posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray


Leaving much of the story out? Reasonable suspicion - a car matching the suspects (the one they were search for) is hiding behind the residence. That's probably cause/reasonable suspicion. Why would even try to hide that so dishonestly?

woooooooops........hate it when that happens.

Calling Bedlam & Object Zero....come out of hiding !

I'm sure they'll be back after regrouping. Armed with something like "Lies all lies !!".


And what "lies" have I posted? I've only stated guidelines and laws.

It's really simple. officer one find car matching description tells officer two. Officer two asks to see the owner of the ID's car. If the guy shuts the door let him. After that both officers make sure no one leave the property, it's a trailer not very hard. While also calling for backup and a search warrant on the ground of the car found. Look all i's dotted and t's crossed, the chance on un needed death drops and the police are free and clear of any backlash.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: stevieray

If you don't think cops lie in their reports then you are incredibly naive.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: stevieray
Now you are just being an ass. I never implied such a thing. However I've read many police reports, some that I actually witnessed the event and I know damn well how the police( the dirty ones especially) use the term combative to justify brutality.

edit on 18-11-2015 by jrod because: arr



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
The person's car parked near a house is "probable cause" for a search without warrant? The suspecting running into the house might be.

Really ? Not the possibility that "car parked behind" and "used to live in that house" could mean "suspect inside" ???

lol, please say we misunderstood your post.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   

"Wow. Could you possible create a more contrived, self-serving piece of creative writing, 100 % fiction ?

We're supposed to at least have a passing interest in the facts and background, lol."

Well Thank-You, I would like to think I have creative writing skills ! I'm not sure how what I wrote was "self serving"...it takes time, energy and concern to follow the outcome and facts of this story, I truly believe that people need to keep a very close eye on the police, especially when it ends up in a man being shot to death.

Did I speculate in what I wrote, Yes, ....but it is based on what facts I know to be true so far and my own 52 years of life experiences...certainly not 100% fiction....I assure you I have more then a "passing interest" in the facts, and hope we can discuss this further once the investigation is complete.
edit on 18-11-2015 by MountainLaurel because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-11-2015 by MountainLaurel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: stevieray

If you don't think cops lie in their reports then you are incredibly naive.


Didn't say anything remotely close to this. Don't pull an imagination muscle, lol.

I was talking about your generic "police liars report", as though it's a standard, and you know it's true in this case.

Yikes.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: stolencar18
The people are the problem. NOT the cops.


So the cops are then just removing the problem.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: stevieray
Now you arr just being an ass. I never implied such a thing. However I've read many police reports, some that I actually witnessed the event and I know damn well how the police( the dirty ones especially) use the term combative to justify brutality.

You referred to the "tactic" without even remotely acknowledging that it could ever be the truth.

I don't doubt that it's happened as you described, now and then. Just not typically, which your post leaned toward.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: roadgravel
The person's car parked near a house is "probable cause" for a search without warrant? The suspecting running into the house might be.

Really ? Not the possibility that "car parked behind" and "used to live in that house" could mean "suspect inside" ???

lol, please say we misunderstood your post.


Still no reason to break into a house. As mentioned before, get a warrant. That's how it is to work.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: ObjectZero

originally posted by: stevieray


Leaving much of the story out? Reasonable suspicion - a car matching the suspects (the one they were search for) is hiding behind the residence. That's probably cause/reasonable suspicion. Why would even try to hide that so dishonestly?

woooooooops........hate it when that happens.

Calling Bedlam & Object Zero....come out of hiding !

I'm sure they'll be back after regrouping. Armed with something like "Lies all lies !!".


And what "lies" have I posted? I've only stated guidelines and laws.

It's really simple. officer one find car matching description tells officer two. Officer two asks to see the owner of the ID's car. If the guy shuts the door let him. After that both officers make sure no one leave the property, it's a trailer not very hard. While also calling for backup and a search warrant on the ground of the car found. Look all i's dotted and t's crossed, the chance on un needed death drops and the police are free and clear of any backlash.

I haven't said you've posted lies. I just described a classic reply that's often used WRT inconvenient facts. Calling them "lies" and getting out of Dodge, lol. There's no way to explain away the fact that the suspect's car was there, giving the police complete and total cause for entering.

There's no way to deny it now. The thread should be over, in Reality Land.

But I see you already gave it a go, lmao.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: roadgravel
The person's car parked near a house is "probable cause" for a search without warrant? The suspecting running into the house might be.

Really ? Not the possibility that "car parked behind" and "used to live in that house" could mean "suspect inside" ???

lol, please say we misunderstood your post.


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things ...


The car did not give them the right to forcibly enter the home. It would have gave them grounds for a warrant, but instead they forcibly entered the home attacked a man beat him, dragged him outside and shot him.

It wasn't even the guy they were looking for.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: roadgravel
The person's car parked near a house is "probable cause" for a search without warrant? The suspecting running into the house might be.

Really ? Not the possibility that "car parked behind" and "used to live in that house" could mean "suspect inside" ???

lol, please say we misunderstood your post.


Still no reason to break into a house. As mentioned before, get a warrant. That's how it is to work.


heh, police pursuing suspects don't "break into houses". I think we have a terminology problem here.

Though I see where you'd fall into it. Every death in a police case is automatically labeled "murder, execution, assassination" around here.

"Warrant" is not ALWAYS "how it works". As has been explained logically, ad nauseum in this thread. But rejected, apparently.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: roadgravel
The person's car parked near a house is "probable cause" for a search without warrant? The suspecting running into the house might be.

Really ? Not the possibility that "car parked behind" and "used to live in that house" could mean "suspect inside" ???

lol, please say we misunderstood your post.


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things ...


The car did not give them the right to forcibly enter the home. It would have gave them grounds for a warrant, but instead they forcibly entered the home attacked a man beat him, dragged him outside and shot him.

It wasn't even the guy they were looking for.

The constitution is not a blanket escape clause for criminals against police. When police go to unusual lengths, they explain it in court. The court either accepts their explanation, or does not. That's how we use the constitution WRT criminals and crime.

We don't let every single criminal or suspect run away and hide because the constitution says it's their right.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: stevieray




heh, police pursuing suspects don't "break into houses". I think we have a terminology problem here.


Yes that is obvious. Your terminology lacks.

Pursuit wold be if the police had eyes on the suspect. They didn't. They were not in pursuit.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: MountainLaurel

"Wow. Could you possible create a more contrived, self-serving piece of creative writing, 100 % fiction ?

We're supposed to at least have a passing interest in the facts and background, lol."

Well Thank-You, I would like to think I have creative writing skills ! I'm not sure how what I wrote was "self serving"...it takes time, energy and concern to follow the outcome and facts of this story, I truly believe that people need to keep a very close eye on the police, especially when it ends up in a man being shot to death.

Did I speculate in what I wrote, Yes, ....but it is based on what facts I know to be true so far and my own 52 years of life experiences...certainly not 100% fiction....I assure you I have more then a "passing interest" in the facts, and hope we can discuss this further once the investigation is complete.



Your character development was beautiful. Especially where it painted the picture of bad cop / sweet other guy.
edit on 18-11-2015 by stevieray because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: stevieray




heh, police pursuing suspects don't "break into houses". I think we have a terminology problem here.


Yes that is obvious. Your terminology lacks.

Pursuit wold be if the police had eyes on the suspect. They didn't. They were not in pursuit.

No more "I know you are but what am I" please. Bad for the site.

You're actually saying "pursuit ends whenever car stops, or suspect hides ? Please say no.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: stolencar18




You use the word murder. There was no murder, at least not supported by the facts...YET. There was a killing. A killing that at this point has not resulted in charges. It may, but it hasn't.

Killings aren't necessarily murders. Just because you choose to pre-judge the guy doesn't mean you're right.

Facts--They forced entry into a home started beating and tasing a guy, dragged him outside and while he was laying on the ground they shot him multiple times. They were the aggressors that's clear they violated his constitutional rights and killed him.
It is murder. They are murderers.


Let's get your "facts" straight.

Forced their way in? Yup.
Dragged him outside? Hard to say. Speculation. Maybe he charged? No proof. See my previous post about possible video evidence.
Aggressors? I'd say the deceased was the aggressor.
Constitutional rights violated? Not even a little bit.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: stevieray



heh, police pursuing suspects don't "break into houses". I think we have a terminology problem here.


Look up by law what "breaking' is. it is entering, crossing the threshold.

The terminology problem seems to be on your end.


breaking and entering

n. 1) the criminal act of entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization.




posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
The person's car parked near a house is "probable cause" for a search without warrant? The suspecting running into the house might be.


Cops looking for a guy. See his car. Knock on door. Other guys answers and says "no and you can't look for him either".

I'd say that's pretty probably cause.




top topics



 
85
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join