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: 12
85
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: stolencar18

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.


'Bout time you got your ass back here. It was wearing me out being the only adult. Herding cats, ugh. Angry, lashing-out cats.

Funny about those "facts".




posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: OhOkYeah
Interesting.

Break into a man's home, then execute him for no reason..

Seems like a pretty easy life sentence or two to hand out to these cops. If any regular citizen did this, they'd be facing public shaming and death penalty.

I hope the state does the right thing here. If not, I hope the officers' information is leaked sooner rather than later. Tired of these scumbags murdering people and getting a paid vacation for it


Those officers were just doing what they had to do to make sure they went home at the end of their shift. When the man said they couldn't search his house, what if he had been a drug dealer and he was hiding a huge heroin ring? That man might have waited until the cops backs were turned, gone back out of the house, and killed them just incase.

Really, killing that guy was a kindness, it saved the cops from having to kill the roommate too.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: stolencar18




Forced their way in? Yup.


yup




Dragged him outside? Hard to say. Speculation. Maybe he charged? No proof.


No. There is an eye witness account and physical evidence outside where the blood stains are.




Aggressors? I'd say the deceased was the aggressor.


Cool, so that means I can bust into your home and label you as the aggressor.




Constitutional rights violated? Not even a little bit.


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 ...



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:12 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.


They aren't legally required to wait for a warrant, even if it's physically possible. The twit in the house got what he had coming, if this story is true. Fought the cop and tased him? Bye bye!

And where's the video...

Funny how NONE of you anti-cop people will address my statements about video, the car behind the house, the dumbass tasing the cop, etc.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:16 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.


Yes, except for when there are ground to go without one. Why can't anyone accept that?



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:17 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.


lol dude..you wont give up. They had the right to enter it. I dont care if you disagree. It's truth. Fact.



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

originally posted by: stolencar18

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.


Don't go into law then.

So cops see a random person in a car in front of your house doing drugs. Ah ha. your house is the dealer's residence. Raid your house with probable cause. Ok. Got it.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler

Witnesses said Livingston was not fighting back and was trying to get the Taser out of the deputy’s hands.


So which was it?

He was "not fighting back" is contradicted by "and was trying to get the Taser out of the deputy's hands."


Let's not focus on forceful entry into a residence without a warrant...
I just hope you're not one of those who ever talks about 'protecting the constitution' in any other sense, gun rights, etc. Cuz blatant hypocrisy, such as completely disregarding the blatant violation of the consititution in one context and then being all 'WE NEED TO DEFEND THIS CONSTITUTION!' in other contexts, is quite annoying.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray

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.


Did you know that even if they were looking for the suspect at the suspect's own house they would need a warrant to enter?

The suspects car being parked at his own home or another wouldn't give them the right to forcibly enter either home without a warrant.

What part of that do you not understand?



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: stolencar18

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.


lol dude..you wont give up. They had the right to enter it. I dont care if you disagree. It's truth. Fact.



Nope. The fact is your simply wrong.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: stolencar18

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.


'Bout time you got your ass back here. It was wearing me out being the only adult. Herding cats, ugh. Angry, lashing-out cats.

Funny about those "facts".


LOL herding cats...that expression always cracks me up. Its like arguing with a wall in here. "derp get a warrant he didnt have a warrant cops alwayz need warrants cops r murderers". Absolutely no common sense or legal knowledge at all. Just whatever they read on Alex Jones or ATS.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   
All LEOs should be required to wear cameras and have them on when on duty. No conveniently turning them off.
They should also be required to take drug tests once every 2 weeks and steroids is a cause for immediate dismissal as well as alcohol abuse.

Citizen review boards and no more internal investigators that protect thru the "blue code"

LEO convicted of an offence gets the same treatment as anyother citizen.

The rule of law doesn't exclude law enforcement. No preferential treatment.


edit on 18-11-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
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.


haha, nope, back to you.

Cops don't pursue authorization when they have cause to believe a criminal is inside, doing anything that they can't be allowed to continue.

Also not a criminal act, unless a trial and jury and judge say so.

Why is this so hard ? Several of you guys elude logic like a criminal eluding the police.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: stolencar18




Forced their way in? Yup.


yup




Dragged him outside? Hard to say. Speculation. Maybe he charged? No proof.


No. There is an eye witness account and physical evidence outside where the blood stains are.




Aggressors? I'd say the deceased was the aggressor.


Cool, so that means I can bust into your home and label you as the aggressor.




Constitutional rights violated? Not even a little bit.


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 ...


Dragged? Still speculating. This eyewitness may also be hiding video evidence, and he's certainly biased. And the blood could be there because the guy charged the cop. Prove it, either way.

And they didnt really even break in. They had legal authority. And your constitution argument was heard and it doesn't apply. There are times when you can act without a warrant. Good grief...



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: stevieray

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.


Did you know that even if they were looking for the suspect at the suspect's own house they would need a warrant to enter?

The suspects car being parked at his own home or another wouldn't give them the right to forcibly enter either home without a warrant.

What part of that do you not understand?


I'm not going to respond to you beyond this: you're wrong here pal. Way wrong. The cop was legally allowed to enter with probable cause. Disagree? Go for it.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: stevieray

Your making up your own version of the Constitution. That's fine but don't expect many of us to agree.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: stolencar18

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.


Don't go into law then.

So cops see a random person in a car in front of your house doing drugs. Ah ha. your house is the dealer's residence. Raid your house with probable cause. Ok. Got it.

Guy used to live there. Not some random house. Mustn't.......forget........that.

They were looking for the guy, not the random house. Large amount of evidence indicated him in the house.

Up to a jury to decide if I'm correct on this. Not you.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: stolencar18




Dragged? Still speculating. This eyewitness may also be hiding video evidence,


You can speculate that there is video evidence if you like.



and he's certainly biased.


Someone close to him was murdered. You think.




And the blood could be there because the guy charged the cop. Prove it, either way.


More speculation?




And they didnt really even break in.


It is already admitted that they forced their way through a closed door. Or are you now saying the door wasn't slammed?




They had legal authority.


It seems you are confused. Police have a certain authority, but that does not give them the legal authority to violate the constitution.



And your constitution argument was heard and it doesn't apply.


Actually it does. I know you disagree.




There are times when you can act without a warrant.


No one claimed there were not times, unfortunately this wasn't one of those times.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: stolencar18




Forced their way in? Yup.


yup




Dragged him outside? Hard to say. Speculation. Maybe he charged? No proof.


No. There is an eye witness account and physical evidence outside where the blood stains are.




Aggressors? I'd say the deceased was the aggressor.


Cool, so that means I can bust into your home and label you as the aggressor.




Constitutional rights violated? Not even a little bit.


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 ...


If you think I've got your kid in my house, yes you can bust in and be exonerated. As long as there was compelling evidence that a reasonable person (jury) would think justified my actions. Even if I'm wrong, if the guy fights me for no other reason than being a dick....I likely get exonerated.

Decent people would say "OMG, yeah look, I don't have your child, please let me help". Apparently a lot of people at ATS would yell "bwahahaha FU I don't have to let you do s**t, too bad about the missing brat".

Cops get same leeway, in fact more.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray
It's really simple. officer one find car matching description tells officer two.



originally posted by: ObjectZero
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.


Why did you change "car matching description" (which for all we know could well have been "red BMW 300 series") to "suspect's car"?
edit on 18/11/2015 by moniker because: Markup error




top topics



 
85
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join