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

a reply to: Grimpachi

Logic, maybe, but not logical in a practical sense.

Try to wrap your head around this.

It's the middle of the night and they're following a lead of some kind. The car is only described as "behind the house" (or something similar. What's better? Sneak onto the property and search it for the VIN (that should set off your warrant bells, except it was your damn idea) or do we knock on the door and hope the resident can explain?

Until the conversation is known, or perhaps the video comes out, quit speculating. You LITERALLY just said it was logical to go into the guys back yard and examine his vehicle for a VIN without a warrant, but knocking on the door NEEDS a warrant.

LOL cracks me up. You guys can't keep your own stories straight. Don't lecture me about logic.

Had an afterthought...even if they COULD go check the VIN, how do they know it's right? What if their description of the guys car is "Blue Chevy Malibu, approx 2012 model year, 4 doors, with unknown NC plates" and they see a car matching that in the yard. They don't necessarily even know the VIN # of the real bad guys car. How can they compare it?

You know...logic and stuff.

originally posted by: stolencar18
a reply to: stevieray

I dunno. Personally I'm ok with cops killing ...

So you are ok with the Judge Dread style of law enforcement? I mean who needs rights or innocent until proven guilty right?

originally posted by: stolencar18

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.

Matching description gives police authority to stop someone on the street or pull over a car. Both cases would give them the opertunity to investigate further to verify a certain amount of certainty.


A car parked at a residence at 3:30 AM due dillgence would be to asertain further certainty. That didn't happen.

Were they brain dead, lazy, or liars by using the car as an excuse?

originally posted by: stolencar18

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.

To take someone's DNA from them without consent requires a warrant.

Your argument is invalid.

a reply to: thov420

Good grief man...it's a joke. Holy crap this place is full of people with their underwear hiked up WAY too high. You watch too many movies.

Police officers need to stop shooting innocent people,
bottom line.

The entire law enforcement system needs an overhaul.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: stolencar18

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.

To take someone's DNA from them without consent requires a warrant.

Your argument is invalid.

LOL please see my other response re: logic regarding VIN numbers.

a reply to: stolencar18

Examining a car in the yard does not require a warrant, busting into the place because you "think" he's there does.

a reply to: Darkblade71

AGREED!
Cops need to stop shooting innocent people. We can all agree there.


So....is this guy innocent? Or did he do something to endanger the officer?

Oh wait. That's what we're discussing.

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: stolencar18

Examining a car in the yard does not require a warrant, busting into the place because you "think" he's there does.

Depends on the property. If it's parked on an alley or public laneway, sure, go up and check the VIN. If it's in the yard or behind the house inside the fence? You can't just walk up and check it.

I have to add this....
10 pages of arguments on here center around the need for a warrant. The warrant crowd swears the cop needed a warrant to enter his property.
Now you're saying it's fair game to go onto his private property without a warrant?
Which is it? His fenced yard, or unfenced yard, is still his private property. It requires a warrant, unless there is reasonable suspicion.

a reply to: stolencar18

You think killing a "suspected" child molester is a joke? Good god man, where's your humanity?

a reply to: stolencar18

Logic, maybe, but not logical in a practical sense.

Try to wrap your head around this.

It's the middle of the night and they're following a lead of some kind. The car is only described as "behind the house" (or something similar. What's better? Sneak onto the property and search it for the VIN (that should set off your warrant bells, except it was your damn idea) or do we knock on the door and hope the resident can explain?

They already were on the property. They can legally do that without a warrant because things are in plain view. They can legally do that to ascertain certainty.

Try to wrap your head around that.

Until the conversation is known, or perhaps the video comes out, quit speculating. You LITERALLY just said it was logical to go into the guys back yard and examine his vehicle for a VIN without a warrant, but knocking on the door NEEDS a warrant.

Video is speculation. VIN verification has been explained.

Had an afterthought...even if they COULD go check the VIN, how do they know it's right? What if their description of the guys car is "Blue Chevy Malibu, approx 2012 model year, 4 doors, with unknown NC plates" and they see a car matching that in the yard. They don't necessarily even know the VIN # of the real bad guys car. How can they compare it?

In that case they would not have sufficient evidence to forcibly enter a home. They might not even have sufficient cause to obtain a warrant.


However, the reality is they were searching for a person by name and would have access to info to any vehicle under that person's name.

a reply to: stolencar18

They didn't have a warrant to search his home,
the guy broke no law, once they entered his home without a warrant, he technically could of shot them.
He should not of been tazed in the first place,
and they broke INTO his place.

With NO warrant.

That is an illegal entry.

But then, I am no lawyer, just a common man on the street watching the police departments around the country kill my fellow human beings without cause due to their own mistakes.

originally posted by: stolencar18

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: stolencar18

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.

To take someone's DNA from them without consent requires a warrant.

Your argument is invalid.

LOL please see my other response re: logic regarding VIN numbers.

I did see it. Your logic is flawed as I have explained.

a reply to: Darkblade71

I recommend you read up on "reasonable suspicion" and "probably cause".

You know, things that allow cops to react to immediate problems.

As far as the guy whining about the joke...just stop whining. My humanity? I have no concern for people like that. We'll debate this in another thread if you wish.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Ever heard of unregistered cars? Borrowed? Missing a VIN plate in the windshield? (or should the cop bust open the door and look there?)
We don't know crap about the car except it matched SOME description.

Your entire VIN argument is 100% moot. Unless we know that the car was registered to the owner the VIN is worthless.

Let's get on topic.

Cop saw car. Car matched the info he had. Combine that with the guy at the door with the attitude? That's probable cause. Plain and simple.

a reply to: stolencar18

Well at least you admit you have no concern for people SUSPECTED of committing crimes. Screw the bill of rights, I think someone did wrong so I can just execute them at my will [if I'm a police officer] and be justified.

Ever heard of unregistered cars? Borrowed? Missing a VIN plate in the windshield? (or should the cop bust open the door and look there?)
We don't know crap about the car except it matched SOME description.

Your entire VIN argument is 100% moot. Unless we know that the car was registered to the owner the VIN is worthless.

Let's get on topic.

Cop saw car. Car matched the info he had. Combine that with the guy at the door with the attitude? That's probable cause. Plain and simple.

You have just tried to nullify the fourth amendment and NC statutes.

To forcibly enter a home as they did without warrant would require stronger evidence than would be needed to obtain a warrant. In your example they wouldn't even have enough evidence to obtain a warrant.


Matching "some description of vehicle" does not give legal precedent to forcibly enter a home.



BTW your claim that the guy had an attitude and that gives them probable cause is null and void.


Bang on my door at 3:30 in the morning wanting to search it and you will definitely get some attitude. That is common sense. I know most people lack it.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Please explain to me HOW my claim that the officer has reasonable suspicion is possibly false?

Let's not forget - we don't even know if that's the grounds that were used to enter the premises (IF he actually entered the premises). Even those points are just hearsay at this point. But it's what we're going with....SO...He entered the premises using reasonable suspicion grounds. The car may have contributed to that. Maybe he saw or heard something else. That's unknown. But you're premise is that there was no possible reasonable suspicion. How do you figure?

Should we as citizens expect to have the right to be secure in our own homes without fear of the government intruding without warrant?

I think we do some may disagree.


Obtaining a warrant requires reason, evidence, and sworn testimony. It must be justified.


Government officials obtaining warrants is a form checks and balances. No one person should have the right to trample my rights.