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: 16
85
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: stolencar18

What is 'Legal Authority'? Do you mean 'permission'? Do you mean the delegated authority to impliment and enforce laws; to exact obedience; to command; to Judge? Do you mean as a synonym to power? Did the officers exercise 'Legal Power'? The 'right' of a public officer to require obedience to their orders lawfully issued in the scope of their public duties?

If so, what were those lawful orders?

Did 'reasonable suspicion' exist? Would an ordinarily prudent and cautious man under the same circumstances believe criminal activity is at hand?

"We don't know the facts about what caused the reasonable suspicion." Really? So, then the fact that reasonable suspicion must be based on specific and articulable facts and rational inferences from those facts must be taken together to reasonably warrant intrusion; is not what happened?

Right to enter a premise? Where can I find me some of that? Only place I have seen such an 'authority' is in the context of Urgent Necessity or Exigent Circumstance. Was this really one of those exceptions?

Officer 'discretion'? Actions taken in light of reason and applied to all facts and with views to rights of all parties to action while having regard for what is right and equitable under all circumstances and law? We are still talking discretion of a public officer, yes? A public officer being one occupying a public office created by law?

People do not know any better to deny the illegal searches. Which then become lawful consentual searches. Police can stop and request to search your person or posessions without reasonable suspicion. A terry stop is exactly this... A search and inquiry short of reasonables suspicion. U.S. v. Sokolow and Terry v. Ohio come to mind. Even Investigatory stops still require specific and articulable facts AND that a person has or is comitting a crime.

This was a knock and talk, plain and simple... An investigatory stop. They had 'authority' to enter the property and to knock on the door, we call these types of passage agreements 'easments' and every real property has them to some degree with the municiality and utility service providers. After they did not secure a voluntary waiver of rights and consentual search, it was time to leave.




posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

I agree that we should have that expectation, and I agree that warrants are valuable.

There are situations where we can't wait for a warrant though, and we must act. In my earlier example, a cop walks by a random house while strolling down the sidewalk and sees a man inside the window stabbing a woman.

Do we call for a warrant, even if a QUICK warrant takes 5-10 minutes? How many times can he stab her in that time?

What if the cop saw someone through a window that is a very wanted person? IE a murderer or something that is instantly recognizable. Do we wait on a warrant?

There has to be - and there are - accommodations that allow enforcement to act in situations requiring immediate attention, at the officers discretion. He doesn't have to call the chief and go "hey boss, this guys gonna stab this chick. Should I do something?". He just handles it.

Maybe the cop didn't see a stabbing in this situation, but he saw something that gave him reasonable suspicion. Good enough.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: J.B. Aloha

I'm not going to bother debating your entire post. I'll just say this...what you say is "basically" true, but you've left out the part where officers can legally search or enter a premises without a warrant. You and I both know this to be true. You can write a thousand words - it doesn't make it less true.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: stolencar18




Maybe the cop didn't see a stabbing in this situation, but he saw something that gave him reasonable suspicion. Good enough.


Yes there are different circumstances for action.


You seem to be going to vast lengths to muddle what has happened. No stabbing, no crime being committed.

A cop without a warrant, being told to leave.

A bully on a power trip and a father of three killed by him at his own home.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: stolencar18

You have yet to make a valid argument as to why the police officer had reasonable suspicion, unless you think the Bill of Rights do not apply to trailer parks.

It seems that you are really pushing for a mental gymnastics trophy with your arguments that the 4th Amendment does not apply to the deceased and his home.

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



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

originally posted by: stolencar18
a reply to: J.B. Aloha

but you've left out the part where officers can legally search or enter a premises without a warrant. You and I both know this to be true. You can write a thousand words - it doesn't make it less true.


And what part have I left out? Please enlighten me. I am sure that in all my post taken in aggregate, I have covered most of the exceptions:

(1) Consent (2) Plain View Doctrine (3) Exigent Circumstances or as in NC 'Urgent Necessity' (4) As part of an Arrest

The only one That I have not covered is (5) More than one occupant with differing consents and occupant absence. ETA: and this is a relatively new one thanks to Georgia v. Randolph (2006) and Fernandez v. California (2014).
edit on 18-11-2015 by J.B. Aloha because: ETA



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: stolencar18
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?


At the time I posted it, all that was being said was "had his foot in the door". Look at time stamps much?

At any rate, "a car matching the suspect's" - what, a Camry? Did they run plates? Notice that it's pretty generic?



You left out a pretty big detail from your story - enough of a detail to have reasonable suspicion that the guy was lying.
And to go further...the officers statement say the deceased was using his own taser on him WHILE he was shooting in self defense.


If the cop entered his home by force without warrant, he is entitled to defend himself.

Besides which, what do you expect the cop to say?




Finally, the cop is so confident in his story that he goes on to say that he thinks someone in the house recorded it on his cell phone. Why would he claim there is video proof if he has something to hide, and, if there is video proof, why is someone in the house hiding it?


The cop's already breaking and entering, I'm sure if there were a recording the cop has it in hand. If it supported his tale, they'd be playing it.



The part that makes me the most mad isn't that you so dishonestly ignored other facts (which are just as credible as the foot in the door statement), it's that these losers in this house and the area are acting as if this guy is some saint and possibly hiding evidence that could clear up the story.


The part that amuses me is that you wait about six hours and pick up on a much later news story, then try to claim it's one I could have seen. A lot like a cop.



I guarantee that if the video showed that the cop as out of line and the guy was innocent that this video would be on every single channel. It's not. What does that say?


It tells ME the cop #ed up, saw someone recording, and confiscated the phone.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: stolencar18
Maybe the cop didn't see a stabbing in this situation, but he saw something that gave him reasonable suspicion. Good enough.


No, it's not good enough. Warrants can only be circumvented when time is an issue and there is no time to wait for a warrant, such as seeing a woman being stabbed. The officer was watching the premises, no one would be able to enter or leave without him knowing. Time was not an issue in this case.


originally posted by: stolencar18
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.


Anything he did (which seems to be nothing) would be in self defense after a lunatic busts into your home, starts torturing you with a taser, and plans to kill you. A badge doesn't change that.
edit on 18-11-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: stolencar18

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?


Being SO, they have the ability to search things in the open (open field law) as long as it's not in an outbuilding. VINs are, by intent, discoverable without opening the vehicle. And you're assuming it had no plates.



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.


They know the identity of the guy they were after for assault, or they couldn't have issued a warrant. That should tell them the plates and VIN, if it's his car. I guess he could have STOLEN it, if you want to complicate your tale a bit. But then, they should still know the VIN if it's been reported.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 08:45 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."



Doesn't matter which one it is, even if the roommate is lying his butt off, the cops were not following the law. He wasn't the suspect and there was no warrant. He had the right to tell them get of his porch and away from his house.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
why were you guys giving this clown the time of day?

that was 9 solid hours of bull#
more than an average work day
started at 7:50 and ended at almost 5

and it was apparent in the first few posts you were going to get nowhere
just pretend he doesnt exist ignore everything he says
keep talking among each other and whenever you see his post just ignore it dont even validate it with a response

but for $(*%s sake dont spend 9 hours arguing with a god damned wall

(also worth checking out their post history)

edit on 22-11-2015 by fartlordsupreme because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: J.B. Aloha
a reply to: stolencar18

What is 'Legal Authority'? Do you mean 'permission'? Do you mean the delegated authority to impliment and enforce laws; to exact obedience; to command; to Judge? Do you mean as a synonym to power? Did the officers exercise 'Legal Power'? The 'right' of a public officer to require obedience to their orders lawfully issued in the scope of their public duties?

If so, what were those lawful orders?

Did 'reasonable suspicion' exist? Would an ordinarily prudent and cautious man under the same circumstances believe criminal activity is at hand?

"We don't know the facts about what caused the reasonable suspicion." Really? So, then the fact that reasonable suspicion must be based on specific and articulable facts and rational inferences from those facts must be taken together to reasonably warrant intrusion; is not what happened?

Right to enter a premise? Where can I find me some of that? Only place I have seen such an 'authority' is in the context of Urgent Necessity or Exigent Circumstance. Was this really one of those exceptions?

Officer 'discretion'? Actions taken in light of reason and applied to all facts and with views to rights of all parties to action while having regard for what is right and equitable under all circumstances and law? We are still talking discretion of a public officer, yes? A public officer being one occupying a public office created by law?

People do not know any better to deny the illegal searches. Which then become lawful consentual searches. Police can stop and request to search your person or posessions without reasonable suspicion. A terry stop is exactly this... A search and inquiry short of reasonables suspicion. U.S. v. Sokolow and Terry v. Ohio come to mind. Even Investigatory stops still require specific and articulable facts AND that a person has or is comitting a crime.

This was a knock and talk, plain and simple... An investigatory stop. They had 'authority' to enter the property and to knock on the door, we call these types of passage agreements 'easments' and every real property has them to some degree with the municiality and utility service providers. After they did not secure a voluntary waiver of rights and consentual search, it was time to leave.

yes, there were "legal powers" and "lawful orders" in play.

Your other 1,387 words, I don't know what to do with them.
edit on 23-11-2015 by stevieray because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: fartlordsupreme
why were you guys giving this clown the time of day?

that was 9 solid hours of bull#
more than an average work day
started at 7:50 and ended at almost 5

and it was apparent in the first few posts you were going to get nowhere
just pretend he doesnt exist ignore everything he says
keep talking among each other and whenever you see his post just ignore it dont even validate it with a response

but for $(*%s sake dont spend 9 hours arguing with a god damned wall

(also worth checking out their post history)

Wish we could figure out who and what you're talking about.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: thov420
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.

Well, other than no one was executed, you have a wonderful point here.



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 01:53 AM
link   
A Taser is a weapon, and if you grab it, even expended, then you have essentially grabbed at no less than his service weapon.



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 02:06 AM
link   
a reply to: smirkley

A policeman is only considered to be a policeman when he is acting within the law. If his equipment is being used in the commission of an offence under the law, then no part of it, including any of the firearms or less than lethal gear he might be carrying, can be considered to be his service weapon at the time of the commission of the offence. At the time in question, the officers concerned had just performed an illegal entry into a residence, assaulted and manhandled a citizen, and illegally deployed a tazer into him.

Now, it should be stated that a tazer is a weapon which acts on the central nervous system, and as such, grabbing at it when its juice is spent is not something that a great many people could avoid doing, since the sheer shock of the deployment would be enough to re-wire their conscious mind, and slave most of their motor functions to be controlled by the amygdala, the fight or flight centre of the brain. Not desiring to be hit with more tazer shots is not something a human mind has control over. It is a basic instinct.

So, not only had the officers rendered themselves and their equipment beyond the protection of the law, by acting outside of it, but their justification for deploying lethal weapons against their victim is moot, because it is unlikely that their victim had the remotest bit of choice in how he responded to the threat he perceived.



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 02:46 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Well put.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: smirkley

A policeman is only considered to be a policeman when he is acting within the law. If his equipment is being used in the commission of an offence under the law, then no part of it, including any of the firearms or less than lethal gear he might be carrying, can be considered to be his service weapon at the time of the commission of the offence. At the time in question, the officers concerned had just performed an illegal entry into a residence, assaulted and manhandled a citizen, and illegally deployed a tazer into him.

Now, it should be stated that a tazer is a weapon which acts on the central nervous system, and as such, grabbing at it when its juice is spent is not something that a great many people could avoid doing, since the sheer shock of the deployment would be enough to re-wire their conscious mind, and slave most of their motor functions to be controlled by the amygdala, the fight or flight centre of the brain. Not desiring to be hit with more tazer shots is not something a human mind has control over. It is a basic instinct.

So, not only had the officers rendered themselves and their equipment beyond the protection of the law, by acting outside of it, but their justification for deploying lethal weapons against their victim is moot, because it is unlikely that their victim had the remotest bit of choice in how he responded to the threat he perceived.

These cases won't be determined by your personal interpretations of the law and biology, and you mind reading the participants.

The jury says no to all that you've said.

Please don't make it worse by claiming they're all crazy and paid off and evil. It's not suppose to just keep going on and on like that, not in reality anyway.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: stevieray

ha...the old "they're not cops anymore when they do X" attitude.

The dishonesty in this forum is infuriating.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: DuckforcoveR

Interesting that you should post on this thread. As I suspected that there was some divine inspiration behind Lincoln being on the five dollar bill. The letter E is a trident's head turned sideways. I suspected that the flood, Noah's flood was about in addition to other acts of violence about forced sexual contact on minors. And then I realized what bill Lincoln's face was on. King Neptune holds a trident. And I thought of the flood....the trident....five in alpha-numeric code is "E". I suspected that the civil war was about the same thing as Noah's flood. A Higher Power getting rid of rapists by means of war.

And the cat with the file...

I'm guessing this guy was probably a danger to his children and this police breach was probably about a Higher Power protecting his children, or other children.



new topics

top topics



 
85
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join