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

a reply to: stevieray

probable cause

n. sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed or that certain property is connected with a crime. Probable cause must exist for a law enforcement officer to make an arrest without a warrant, search without a warrant, or seize property in the belief the items were evidence of a crime.

While some cases are easy (pistols and illicit drugs in plain sight, gunshots, a suspect running from a liquor store with a clerk screaming "help"), actions "typical" of drug dealers, burglars, prostitutes, thieves, or people with guilt "written across their faces," are more difficult to categorize.

"Probable cause" is often subjective, but if the police officer's belief or even hunch was correct, finding stolen goods, the hidden weapon or drugs may be claimed as self-fulfilling proof of probable cause. Technically, probable cause has to exist prior to arrest, search or seizure

He wasn't there so their "hunch" was wrong. Fail on their part.

If my belief they were wrong is not allowed then your belief they were legally correct is also no allowed.

originally posted by: roadgravel
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.

Sorry, Constitution never has been a blanket pass for all criminals, suspects, or crimes. Sometimes cops and military act outside the lines. When it's shown to have been correct and/ or well intentioned, they win against the cop-haters.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: stevieray

probable cause

n. sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed or that certain property is connected with a crime. Probable cause must exist for a law enforcement officer to make an arrest without a warrant, search without a warrant, or seize property in the belief the items were evidence of a crime.

While some cases are easy (pistols and illicit drugs in plain sight, gunshots, a suspect running from a liquor store with a clerk screaming "help"), actions "typical" of drug dealers, burglars, prostitutes, thieves, or people with guilt "written across their faces," are more difficult to categorize.

"Probable cause" is often subjective, but if the police officer's belief or even hunch was correct, finding stolen goods, the hidden weapon or drugs may be claimed as self-fulfilling proof of probable cause. Technically, probable cause has to exist prior to arrest, search or seizure

He wasn't there so their "hunch" was wrong. Fail on their part.

If my belief they were wrong is not allowed then your belief they were legally correct is also no allowed.

haha, the point we keep making is that a jury will decide. Neither of us wins the grand victory here @ ATS.

a reply to: stevieray

You know...here's the facts we have.

1. Cops are looking for bad guy.
2. Cops think bad guys lives at house.
3. Cops go to that house.
4. Cops observe bad guys car parked behind house.
5. Cops knock on door, different guy answers
6. DiffGuy says BadGuy isn't there.
7. Cops ask to search property for BadGuy
8. DiffGuy says "get a warrant" and moves to close door on the cop.
9. Cop has reasonable suspicion that something is sketchy.
10. Cop stops DiffGuy from closing door.
11. DiffGuy closes door on cops foot.
12. A scuffle develops.
13. The cop uses pepper spray and a taser on DiffGuy.
14. Cop says his taser dropped and DiffGuy grabbed it.
15. Witness says he did not see taser drop.
16. Cop says DiffGuy tased him and he pulled his gun.
17. Cop shoots DiffGuy while still being tased.
18. DiffGuy dies on scene.
19. Cop says someone on scene appeared to be recording the events. The video is missing in actions.
20. Witnesses gather after the above events occur and say the cop charged in, pulled DiffGuy out violently, tased him, and shot him.
21. Witnesses do not state what DiffGuy was doing besides saying "you can't search without a warrant".

SO...I believe that is all of the facts.

It looks to me like DiffGuy - who is now dead - may have instigated it.

I also question the video evidence. Imagine...if you were a cop and you know you acted out of line, would YOU mention the evidence? And if you recorded a cop doing this, would you present the evidence? Of course. The cop wouldn't claim there was video unless he saw it and he was confident it would exonerate him. Claiming there was incriminating evidence in the video would also be honest, but he's unlikely to say "oh go get this video...it destroys my story". And if you had the video and wanted to incriminate the cop you would have it posted online in a million places. It's not there. So does the video exist? If the guy who recorded it hiding it because he knows it backs the cops story up?

And the "rights" of the guy at the house? The cop has legal authority to enter a property without a warrant under certain circumstances, at his own discretion, which will be reviewed extensively later.

So...Having said all of that...

It appears to me that the cop did what was legally rightful and justified, and the deceased was being a tough guy and tried to tase the cop, and the witnesses may have made crap up to protect their friend AND hid the video proof of what really happened. Nothing about the story says "cop smash door, cop kill boy, cop growl at moon" like you anti-cop junkies want.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: stevieray

probable cause

n. sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed or that certain property is connected with a crime. Probable cause must exist for a law enforcement officer to make an arrest without a warrant, search without a warrant, or seize property in the belief the items were evidence of a crime.

While some cases are easy (pistols and illicit drugs in plain sight, gunshots, a suspect running from a liquor store with a clerk screaming "help"), actions "typical" of drug dealers, burglars, prostitutes, thieves, or people with guilt "written across their faces," are more difficult to categorize.

"Probable cause" is often subjective, but if the police officer's belief or even hunch was correct, finding stolen goods, the hidden weapon or drugs may be claimed as self-fulfilling proof of probable cause. Technically, probable cause has to exist prior to arrest, search or seizure

He wasn't there so their "hunch" was wrong. Fail on their part.

If my belief they were wrong is not allowed then your belief they were legally correct is also no allowed.

"reasonable" cause....."reasonable" person....."due diligence".....even if they guessed wrong, these are the important concepts in the jury's decision.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: stevieray

He wasn't there so their "hunch" was wrong. Fail on their part.

If my belief they were wrong is not allowed then your belief they were legally correct is also no allowed.

So...in the future, if a warrant or reasonable suspicion is ever wrong it should be declared criminal?

Also...we don't know it was wrong. Why was the car behind the house?

originally posted by: stolencar18
a reply to: stevieray

You know...here's the facts we have.

1. Cops are looking for bad guy.
2. Cops think bad guys lives at house.
3. Cops go to that house.
4. Cops observe bad guys car parked behind house.
5. Cops knock on door, different guy answers
6. DiffGuy says BadGuy isn't there.
7. Cops ask to search property for BadGuy
8. DiffGuy says "get a warrant" and moves to close door on the cop.
9. Cop has reasonable suspicion that something is sketchy.
10. Cop stops DiffGuy from closing door.
11. DiffGuy closes door on cops foot.
12. A scuffle develops.
13. The cop uses pepper spray and a taser on DiffGuy.
14. Cop says his taser dropped and DiffGuy grabbed it.
15. Witness says he did not see taser drop.
16. Cop says DiffGuy tased him and he pulled his gun.
17. Cop shoots DiffGuy while still being tased.
18. DiffGuy dies on scene.
19. Cop says someone on scene appeared to be recording the events. The video is missing in actions.
20. Witnesses gather after the above events occur and say the cop charged in, pulled DiffGuy out violently, tased him, and shot him.
21. Witnesses do not state what DiffGuy was doing besides saying "you can't search without a warrant".

SO...I believe that is all of the facts.

It looks to me like DiffGuy - who is now dead - may have instigated it.

I also question the video evidence. Imagine...if you were a cop and you know you acted out of line, would YOU mention the evidence? And if you recorded a cop doing this, would you present the evidence? Of course. The cop wouldn't claim there was video unless he saw it and he was confident it would exonerate him. Claiming there was incriminating evidence in the video would also be honest, but he's unlikely to say "oh go get this video...it destroys my story". And if you had the video and wanted to incriminate the cop you would have it posted online in a million places. It's not there. So does the video exist? If the guy who recorded it hiding it because he knows it backs the cops story up?

And the "rights" of the guy at the house? The cop has legal authority to enter a property without a warrant under certain circumstances, at his own discretion, which will be reviewed extensively later.

So...Having said all of that...

It appears to me that the cop did what was legally rightful and justified, and the deceased was being a tough guy and tried to tase the cop, and the witnesses may have made crap up to protect their friend AND hid the video proof of what really happened. Nothing about the story says "cop smash door, cop kill boy, cop growl at moon" like you anti-cop junkies want.

You have to realize that at some point they knew the facts aren't on their side. They've gone to just trolling and being annoying, angry that we won't agree with them. After a certain point, we aren't even in legitimate discussion, only poking pinching from the guys who knew they only had "I hate cops", from the get-go.

If the jury finds no fault for the cops, they will just go on and on with the same nonsense, applying to the jury as well as the cops. This is not a thing that ever ends because of logic or truth.

a reply to: stevieray

True.

Don't get me wrong - I've been fully on board some of the anti-cop bandwagons. I've agreed that some cops are dirtbags.

This OP though...it's complete tabloid material and blatantly dishonest.

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.

NO, that is not probable cause. Refusing an unwarranted search is NOT probable cause or reasonable suspicion to ahead with a search The 4th amendment and many legal cases have established this.

Not sure why you and your brothers in law have such a difficult time comprehending this.

If the suspect's car was parked outside the residence then they should have got a warrant and case the residence while they wait on the judge to sign off on said warrant.

Busting down the man's door is completely unacceptable, especially for sworn officers of the law.

After looking through several articles on the web I have yet to see anywhere, where it has been stated that the suspects car was parked behind the house.


Even if it was it wouldn't give them the right to forcibly enter a home.



Facts

Cops went to an old adress.

Cops were turned away without a warrant. No mention anywhere of a smashed foot. Door closed only.

Cops kicked in door, maced, tased, beat the homeowner then shot and killed him.


There is mention of the cops dragging the homeowner out on the porch by his beard before killing him.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
After looking through several articles on the web I have yet to see anywhere, where it has been stated that the suspects car was parked behind the house.


Even if it was it wouldn't give them the right to forcibly enter a home.



Facts

Cops went to an old adress.

Cops were turned away without a warrant. No mention anywhere of a smashed foot. Door closed only.

Cops kicked in door, maced, tased, beat the homeowner then shot and killed him.

There is mention of the cops dragging the homeowner out on the porch by his beard before killing him.

How about in the link I posted 3 pages ago? wbtw.com... y-with-stun-gun-before-being-killed-documents-say/
I'll copy and paste it:
At this point, Kehagais reported he saw a vehicle behind the residence matching the description of one owned by a suspect in the assault investigation, the affidavit said.

Got it now?

All the "mentions" of cops beating or dragging are from the biased roommate - possibly the one hiding the video. That's also mentioned in the article.

Why won't stop lying? "I read a bunch of articles". Bull. I linked one in 5 seconds - the 2nd one down in my google news feed.

Admit it...the guy who opened the door was a dirtbag, he antagonized the cop, he MAY have indeed been hiding the original suspect (nobody knows - if the car is there, maybe he's a friend? Maybe it's just a similar car. Don't know yet). The ONLY version you're taking is the crybaby roommate whining about how this guy built the deck with his bare hands.

You refuse to address a single thing the cop claims, and you believe the claims of the roommate must be the gospel.

It's like you haven't even thought about what you're saying, or you're purposely trolling.

a reply to: stevieray
That is exactly what you and stolencar are doing here along with flooding this thread with your bias opinion. The number of posts on the past 5+ pages tell it all.

It appears you two want to drown out the general opinions here and flood the thread with your clearly biased opinion.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
After looking through several articles on the web I have yet to see anywhere, where it has been stated that the suspects car was parked behind the house.

At this point, Kehagais reported he saw a vehicle behind the residence matching the description of one owned by a suspect in the assault investigation, the affidavit said.

So it wasn't the suspects car just a car that looked like it.

An interesting detail that was left out of the earlier fact role call...

A search warrant was applied for and executed at the residence on W. Everett Drive around six hours after the shooting.

I wonder what happened to that reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

SOURCE

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: stevieray
That is exactly what you and stolencar are doing here along with flooding this thread with your bias opinion. The number of posts on the past 5+ pages tell it all.

It appears you two want to drown out the general opinions here and flood the thread with your clearly biased opinion.

My opinion? Please read the list of facts - the only facts we know at this point. Tell me where I'm wrong on those.

Start reading what you're commenting on or get out. Don't say we're flooding this with opinions when all we do is repeat basic facts. Just because the facts are inconvenient for the anticop crowd doesn't make them false.

a reply to: FraggleRock

This is tricky to explain, but I'll try.


Reasonable suspicion lets the cops act now to do what is required (in their opinion) for the safety of themselves and the public.

A warrant would be needed to fully search the property.

See the difference yet? No...you won't. You choose not to.

a reply to: stolencar18

I get it you believe the killer.

The killer who said he dropped his stun gun and that resulted in him killing.


BTW there is no confirmation on the suspects car. Matches description...hmmmm..what might that be? 4 tires 4doors does that match description?

The cop is the one claiming there may be a video. Yeah because everyone records people coming to your home at 3:30 in the morning.



Do believe the cop? Do you think he is biased? Do you think he is honest?


Most of your so-called facts are nothing but quotes that have been made by the person who killed a citizen and is under investigation.

originally posted by: stolencar18
At this point, Kehagais reported he saw a vehicle behind the residence matching the description of one owned by a suspect in the assault investigation, the affidavit said.

Got it now?

No. What was the description? "Sedan"?

You appear to believe that cars are unique and that there can only be one single car that matches any description.

Cars are mass-produced.

All the "mentions" of cops beating or dragging are from the biased roommate - possibly the one hiding the video. That's also mentioned in the article.

And refuted by the likewise biased enforcers.

Why won't stop lying? "I read a bunch of articles". Bull. I linked one in 5 seconds - the 2nd one down in my google news feed.

You linked to an article that does not confirm you case.

You refuse to address a single thing the cop claims, and you believe the claims of the roommate must be the gospel.

All the wile you do the exact opposite.

originally posted by: stolencar18
a reply to: FraggleRock
Reasonable suspicion lets the cops act now to do what is required (in their opinion) for the safety of themselves and the public.

Clearly not for the public.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: stolencar18

I get it you believe the killer.

The killer who said he dropped his stun gun and that resulted in him killing.


BTW there is no confirmation on the suspects car. Matches description...hmmmm..what might that be? 4 tires 4doors does that match description?

The cop is the one claiming there may be a video. Yeah because everyone records people coming to your home at 3:30 in the morning.



Do believe the cop. Do you think he is biased? Do you think he is honest?

Why would anybody at ATS think the cop is biased, honest, or believable, or good, or bad ?

Nobody here ever met the guy.

Some of us think the story from the cops is plausible and we'll wait for the jury and judge to vet it.

The rest of you for some incredible reason are issuing edicts that the cops are guilty, corrupt, evil, etc. without ever seeing, meeting, or knowing anything about them.

originally posted by: moniker

originally posted by: stolencar18
a reply to: FraggleRock
Reasonable suspicion lets the cops act now to do what is required (in their opinion) for the safety of themselves and the public.

Clearly not for the public.

This one guy is not the public.

Please try to expand your understanding of "the public".