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: 14
85
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray

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".


I just went to the dictionary to take up your advice and refresh my understanding of "the public". What I found is exactly what I already understood:

noun (the public) [ treated as sing. or pl. ]
ordinary people in general; the community

But you are of course right. He is not the public. Not anymore. He is dead.
edit on 18/11/2015 by moniker because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: stevieray

Getting caught up on the thread. I am replying to your post, but adressing more than what was posted. Bear with me.

So, were they 'looking for', 'searching for', or 'in pursuit of' a named individual? I see terms used interchangably that should not be, and mincing phrases is detracting from what is presented here and been released thus far. Not to mention, that when dealing with statutory words of art, we do not presume the ordinary meanings. At a minimum use a legal dictionary, if not take a minute to read the definitions in statute, stautory context, and administrative code (general advise, not targeted at anyone specifically).

NC law is also very clear in what I previosly cited in NCGS 15A-285. There was not an 'Urget Necessity', No known active pursuit, officers were denied a [voluntary] consentual search. The vehicle in plain view is not enough 'suspicion' to continue further without a warrant. An unoccupied vehicle 'matching' , but not [as far as I know] being confirmed as the suspects vehicle, fails to establish any exigent circumstance. It IS probable cause to get a warrant. NC generally has on duty magistrates at all hours just for these types of situations...

[and to determine if an arrest, in general, is warranted; given the poor sap is smart enough to demand to go straight to the clerk of the court to file an affidavit of fact, and then to the magistrate, instead of going to booking and lock up; but I digress.]

Due process is simply that, a process... Much like escalation of force. Skipping steps [without very specific parameters being met] gets you in trouble.

I personally don't know enough to take a side, and this is not a legal determination. What is presented and the statutes and case law [at the mloment] are in the favor of the resident in this case, regardless of what happened after the lawful denial of a search and the subsequent foot in the door.

I await any release of [possible] video. This is a good thread, hasn't dove to far into rhetoric and ad hominems



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: stevieray




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.


Many things can be plausible.

Just like it is very plausible the killer is lying to keep from being convicted of murder.




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.


He killed a citizen. A citizen that turned him away at 3:30 in the morning from his own home because he didn't have a warrant.

6 hours after he was killed they got a warrant. hmmm



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: stolencar18

Just because you claim something is a 'fact' does not make it so. The rest of this board certainly does not agree with you list of so called facts.

I think you need someone to ELI5 the difference between fact and opinion. You clearly do not know the difference.

The fact is the police entered a residence without a warrant, the resident refused an unwarranted search which resulted in the death of said resident.

Not sure how one can claim the resident is the aggressor in this situation given the lack of available actual facts.

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



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: moniker

Here's what I'm saying:
The cops story sounds PLAUSIBLE but we don't have all the facts in, from either side. I've been saying that since my first post in this thread. The cops side sounds more plausible, based on my evaluation of the cops statements and the witness statements.

Here's what I hear you saying:
The dead guy is innocent, no matter what. The witnesses - who you admitted are biased - are telling the truth. The cops story is a lie.


Me: I believe one side, but want more facts.
You: Cops a murdered. Period.

See my point? You judge without even basic reasoning. Want my "judgment"? The guy should have just treated the cop with an ounce of respect. They're all effing humans FFS. Answer the door, man up, deal with the issue, and if you're innocent go back inside after and all is well. This waste opened the door and made a decision to antagonize the cop and it sounds like he tased the cop. AND it sounds like his trailer park friend recorded the scene, thinking he could get 30 seconds of fame from it, and it backfired and the video is gone.

There's not a cop on earth who would claim there is video evidence of him murdering someone. He's asking for the video evidence to prove his innocence and justification. Thats the only logical reason to ask for the video.

Your response: what video?

Yes...the video is a rumour now. But its just as much a rumour as anything a witness said.

So...I speculate based on logic and the combined statements.

You jump to a conclusion while ignoring logic and half of the statements.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: stolencar18

You mention his 'trailer park friend'. This shows a level of dissonance on your part and in my opinion a biased against the deceased man and his friends.

It is no secret that many including law enforcement consider trailer park residents a lower class, perhaps a criminal class based on their residence.

I'm sorry but your logic is invalid and your opinion.is clearly biased. Just as some of us are blindly defending the deceased, you are blindly defending the aggressive action of the police.
edit on 18-11-2015 by jrod because: arr



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

The only "facts" we have are produced by the statements of both the witness and the cop (and a few tidbits from news sources). My timeline is "the facts". They may be proven incorrect later, but we are analysing a story based on these "facts". These statements about the incident.

It doesn't matter if people disagree. None of the stuff in my list of "facts" is made up. It's pulled right from the news sources - several of them.

People can disagree on the decisions, but not on the fact that "this happened".

So...I'll ELI5 something for you. The cops entered the house with legal authority. Reasonable suspicion exists. We don't know the facts about what caused the reasonable suspicion. We know he exercised his right to enter the premises based on that. The warrant isn't even in consideration. It is not required to be.

The warrant 6 hours later? You need that for a full, thorough search. You don't need a warrant to take immediate action when it's needed, and it's the officers discretion there.

Could he be proven wrong later at a hearing? Definitely. But at the time, on the scene, the officer used what he believed was legal authority, he acted within his rights, and the guy inside the house disagreed. The cop made a decision based on his experience and observations. I don't care how many times people stand on the warrant grounds like it's holy grail. It isn't. You need a warrant for most things. There are millions of situations when police search people, cars, and property without a warrant and it's legal.

Answer this for me...If reasonable suspicion doesn't exist, why are cops not charged with illegal search charges every single day?

Just because you choose to only look at half the story and you choose to disregard the other half doesn't make it right. I may be wrong too. But at least I'm not making crazy claims like the guys a murderer. That's bull.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: stolencar18
a reply to: moniker

Here's what I'm saying:
The cops story sounds PLAUSIBLE but we don't have all the facts in, from either side. I've been saying that since my first post in this thread. The cops side sounds more plausible, based on my evaluation of the cops statements and the witness statements.

Here's what I hear you saying:
The dead guy is innocent, no matter what.


Entirely in line with the legal principle of presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.


The witnesses - who you admitted are biased - are telling the truth. The cops story is a lie.


I never stated that the cops story is a lie, only that it is doubtful and doesn't hold together. Like you I'd like to see more independent facts - not just the police's own report.


Me: I believe one side, but want more facts.
You: Cops a murdered. Period.


Again, I never stated that.


See my point? You judge without even basic reasoning. Want my "judgment"? The guy should have just treated the cop with an ounce of respect. They're all effing humans FFS. Answer the door, man up, deal with the issue, and if you're innocent go back inside after and all is well. This waste opened the door and made a decision to antagonize the cop and it sounds like he tased the cop. AND it sounds like his trailer park friend recorded the scene, thinking he could get 30 seconds of fame from it, and it backfired and the video is gone.


It appears that you have already judged the homeowner of being disrespectful. Do you have a record of the conversation? Was the policeman respectful? The homeowner is a human FFS.

Is simply responding "sorry, wrong house and show me a warrant so that I understand on what grounds you want to search my property for something I'm not party of, and I'll let you do it. Now, please, I'd like to go back to bed. It is, after all, in the middle of the night." and then gently closing the door, as one normally closes doors, in any way disrespectful?

I do not know that the conversation actually went like this, but it seems quite plausible, doesn't it?


There's not a cop on earth who would claim there is video evidence of him murdering someone. He's asking for the video evidence to prove his innocence and justification. Thats the only logical reason to ask for the video.

Your response: what video?

Yes...the video is a rumour now. But its just as much a rumour as anything a witness said.

So...I speculate based on logic and the combined statements.

You jump to a conclusion while ignoring logic and half of the statements.


Again, I have not written anything about any video. I believe you are mixing up persons and are accusing me of errors in a conversation that you might or might not have had with somebody else. That is quite disrespectful, I would say.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Please explain why my logic is invalid? I'm open to your observations.



Also...I'm very biased against these kinds of people. The trailer park kind? No. The "I don't answer to no stinkin cops" kind? Yes. Am I derogatory? Ya. I think the witness is full of it.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: stolencar18

You mention his 'trailer park friend'. This shows a level of dissonance on your part and in my opinion a biased against the deceased man and his friends.

It is no secret that many including law enforcement consider trailer park residents a lower class, perhaps a criminal class based on their residence.

I'm sorry but your logic is invalid and your opinion.is clearly biased. Just as some of us a blindly defending the deceased, you are blindly defending the aggressive action of the police.

Stereotypes are only interesting and/or funny because they're true 99 % of the time.

-Confucius



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: stolencar18

You mention his 'trailer park friend'. This shows a level of dissonance on your part and in my opinion a biased against the deceased man and his friends.

It is no secret that many including law enforcement consider trailer park residents a lower class, perhaps a criminal class based on their residence.

I'm sorry but your logic is invalid and your opinion.is clearly biased. Just as some of us a blindly defending the deceased, you are blindly defending the aggressive action of the police.

Stereotypes are only interesting and/or funny because they're true 99 % of the time.

-Confucius



Does that also apply to cops?

Like ones who claim a car matches a description and want to use that as an excuse to forcibly enter a home without walking over to the car and actually verifying the VIN or license plate?

Would that stereo type fall under brain dead, lazy, or liar?



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: moniker

originally posted by: stevieray

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".


I just went to the dictionary to take up your advice and refresh my understanding of "the public". What I found is exactly what I already understood:

noun (the public) [ treated as sing. or pl. ]
ordinary people in general; the community

But you are of course right. He is not the public. Not anymore. He is dead.

Sorry, I've never heard anybody ever say "the public" to mean one guy, and neither have you.

You're just being obstinate or contrary at this point.

The point was that I believe you were saying the public at large are menaced by the cops. And I think you know that you did mean that, but you're dancing around now to be annoying.

But it's all good ! Part of the internet, lol.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: stolencar18

You mention his 'trailer park friend'. This shows a level of dissonance on your part and in my opinion a biased against the deceased man and his friends.

It is no secret that many including law enforcement consider trailer park residents a lower class, perhaps a criminal class based on their residence.

I'm sorry but your logic is invalid and your opinion.is clearly biased. Just as some of us a blindly defending the deceased, you are blindly defending the aggressive action of the police.

Stereotypes are only interesting and/or funny because they're true 99 % of the time.

-Confucius



Does that also apply to cops?

Like ones who claim a car matches a description and want to use that as an excuse to forcibly enter a home without walking over to the car and actually verifying the VIN or license plate?

Would that stereo type fall under brain dead, lazy, or liar?


You have no idea what the cop looked at or didn't. So your point is hereby dismissed.

Mine was a joke. Lighten up.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: stevieray




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.


Many things can be plausible.

Just like it is very plausible the killer is lying to keep from being convicted of murder.




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.


He killed a citizen. A citizen that turned him away at 3:30 in the morning from his own home because he didn't have a warrant.

6 hours after he was killed they got a warrant. hmmm

I'm glad that you are operating in Plausible now. An important step. Better than absolute certainty, which is literally impossible at this juncture.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: stolencar18
a reply to: jrod

Please explain why my logic is invalid? I'm open to your observations.



Also...I'm very biased against these kinds of people. The trailer park kind? No. The "I don't answer to no stinkin cops" kind? Yes. Am I derogatory? Ya. I think the witness is full of it.


haha, yes, one of the other underlying themes regarding you and I is that we just love seeing cops murder people.

Me, not so much. You ?



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Another thing.

The cop claims he was trying to arrest the homeowner.


What is the charge? Is it that he wouldn't bow down to the awesome might of men in blue?

I think it is yet another case of arrest him first then make up a charge to demonstrate their awesomeness. If all else fails they can say resisting arrest.


It is no biggie because they can always drop the charges later and wash their hands of it without any repercussions.



It happens all the time.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: stolencar18
You mention his 'trailer park friend'. This shows a level of dissonance on your part and in my opinion a biased against the deceased man and his friends.

It is no secret that many including law enforcement consider trailer park residents a lower class, perhaps a criminal class based on their residence.


I'm sorry but your logic is invalid and your opinion.is clearly biased. Just as some of us a blindly defending the deceased, you are blindly defending the aggressive action of the police.

Stereotypes are only interesting and/or funny because they're true 99 % of the time.

-Confucius



Does that also apply to cops?

Like ones who claim a car matches a description and want to use that as an excuse to forcibly enter a home without walking over to the car and actually verifying the VIN or license plate?

Would that stereo type fall under brain dead, lazy, or liar?


Using this logic, we can no longer question people who "match the description of a bank robber" until we get his DNA.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: stolencar18

You mention his 'trailer park friend'. This shows a level of dissonance on your part and in my opinion a biased against the deceased man and his friends.

It is no secret that many including law enforcement consider trailer park residents a lower class, perhaps a criminal class based on their residence.

I'm sorry but your logic is invalid and your opinion.is clearly biased. Just as some of us a blindly defending the deceased, you are blindly defending the aggressive action of the police.

Stereotypes are only interesting and/or funny because they're true 99 % of the time.

-Confucius



Does that also apply to cops?

Like ones who claim a car matches a description and want to use that as an excuse to forcibly enter a home without walking over to the car and actually verifying the VIN or license plate?

Would that stereo type fall under brain dead, lazy, or liar?


You have no idea what the cop looked at or didn't. So your point is hereby dismissed.

Mine was a joke. Lighten up.



Some people on this board claim to be fans of logic.

Here is a bit logic for those.

If they had verified a VIN or plate they wouldn't have been claiming that the car matches a description. They would be able to say definitively if it was or wasn't the suspect's car.


Logic.
edit on 18-11-2015 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: stevieray

I dunno. Personally I'm ok with cops killing child molesters.
That's a different topic though.

I want this to be looked at fairly. Most people here aren't.

Also...I doubt the guy was Mr. Rogers in his friendly neighborhood to the cop at his doorstep.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: moniker

originally posted by: stevieray

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".


I just went to the dictionary to take up your advice and refresh my understanding of "the public". What I found is exactly what I already understood:

noun (the public) [ treated as sing. or pl. ]
ordinary people in general; the community

But you are of course right. He is not the public. Not anymore. He is dead.

Sorry, I've never heard anybody ever say "the public" to mean one guy, and neither have you.


1. Please stop telling me what I have heard or not. I believe I know what I have heard quite a bit better than you do.

2. If you can, for a brief moment, accept that "the public" is not a single, coherent entity, but is in fact made up of individual members of the public, then you would realise that such a member of the public - e.g. part of the public also includes the person who has now ceased to exist.




top topics



 
85
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join