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