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

originally posted by: stolencar18
a reply to: stevieray

This is my theory too. The guy/"victim" instigated it with a big mouth and the cop had reasonable suspicion that the guy they were hunting for was actually hiding inside.

The entire victim act is sickening. Personally I think cops exercise too much restraint.

if the cop had reasonable suspicion, a judge would have recognized that, and he would have had a warrant in his hand.
the constitutions bill of rights protects individuals against the power of the state....simple high school government studies class clearly points that out

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: stevieray

I've posted the officer's name on here before and more details, dont want to do it again just to shut you up.

I rather not you keep casting doubt on me. It appears you are just posting to blindly defend the police here.

None of us know what happened here, especially you. The apparent fact is the police kicked down a door without warrant and killed an apparent innocent man.

I do know the police will lie to cover their asses and protect each other from just legal actions.

I'm going to rephrase your speculative statement from another perspective.
The police made an inquiry at a door and were met with resistance to their questioning and this caused suspicion for the officer, who followed through with his legal authority and entered the premises forcefully. The instigator resisted, and the officer used force to restrain him, included a non-lethal weapon. The instigator made attempts to grab the non-lethal weapon from the officer, and succeeded in gripping in, which caused the officer to fear for his own safety. The officer exercised his legal authority to use lethal force to protect himself and stop the instigator from causing him harm. The instigator died on scene as a result of gunshot wounds that would have been prevented if he cooperated.

Am I speculating? Ya...just as much as the entire rest of the story. Quit trying to make the deceased into a victim until you know the whole story.

a reply to: boohoo

Your #1-6 is complete bull, as well. Just because you can copy and paste crap from other threads and sites doesn't make an ounce of it true.

The truth: 99.999% of officers are indeed protecting and serving their communities, with a good conscience and heart.

a reply to: boohoo

Why don't we cut the crap?
The under 40 crowd is not a minority, and I never said that. The "anti cop" crowd, which MOST of the under 40 crowd is not a part of, is a minority (you can believe otherwise - the vast majority of people are pro-cop and just go about their lives without yapping).

It doesn't matter how many people you THINK are on your side or how much rhetoric you spit out. I'll take my chances with 100 random cops before 100 random non-cops any day of the week.

Also...to say that cops should be forced to restrain themselves to the point of not defending their own lives (you said even if they die), that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Everyone - including cops - has the right to defend their own safety and lives.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: stolencar18
a reply to: stevieray

This is my theory too. The guy/"victim" instigated it with a big mouth and the cop had reasonable suspicion that the guy they were hunting for was actually hiding inside.

The entire victim act is sickening. Personally I think cops exercise too much restraint.

if the cop had reasonable suspicion, a judge would have recognized that, and he would have had a warrant in his hand.
the constitutions bill of rights protects individuals against the power of the state....simple high school government studies class clearly points that out

I don't think you understand how reasonable suspicion works. Reasonable suspicion, to really sum it up, is something where an officer can make a split second decision on-scene in real time as a result of something he encounters that needs immediate attention, and deferring that decision for even a few minutes could result in a risk to public safety.

That's in the law. Imagine if a cop walked by a house while on a stroll down the sidewalk and saw someone stabbing someone else through the window. Now...does he call it in and ask for a warrant based on his observation, or does he run in and save the guys life? Reasonable suspicion lets cops act in situations where immediate attention is required. Even a 5 minute phone call to a judge for an instant warrant (which doesn't generally happen in 5 minutes) is too long to save the guy. He's dead. Body is cooling. Bad guy gone.

Try that out with your high school government studies...

a reply to: stolencar18

I think you should probably just relax. You aren't going to fight Boohoo, and arguing like you are certainly isn't going to change their mind, or most likely anyone elses. Refusing to acknowledge there might be a problem, is kind of the problem. It is pretty obvious which way your bias leans and that is fine, we all have opinions but burying your head in the sand isn't going to help anything either.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: stolencar18
a reply to: stevieray

This is my theory too. The guy/"victim" instigated it with a big mouth and the cop had reasonable suspicion that the guy they were hunting for was actually hiding inside.

The entire victim act is sickening. Personally I think cops exercise too much restraint.

if the cop had reasonable suspicion, a judge would have recognized that, and he would have had a warrant in his hand.
the constitutions bill of rights protects individuals against the power of the state....simple high school government studies class clearly points that out

Reasonable suspicion happens most often in the field. Not hours or days earlier in a judge's chambers. That would be the "pre-crime" horrors that many of you are always also moaning about.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: stolencar18
a reply to: stevieray

This is my theory too. The guy/"victim" instigated it with a big mouth and the cop had reasonable suspicion that the guy they were hunting for was actually hiding inside.

The entire victim act is sickening. Personally I think cops exercise too much restraint.

if the cop had reasonable suspicion, a judge would have recognized that, and he would have had a warrant in his hand.
the constitutions bill of rights protects individuals against the power of the state....simple high school government studies class clearly points that out

lol, the constitution doesn't give citizens (criminals) a method to always evade the cops' best efforts to keep the peace and order.

It allows for protection against govt sponsored denial of rights and protections. It's why we have courts. Cops denied you due process, it gets thrown out. You don't have any rights to order cops to stand down and leave you alone, if you're acting like a fool or a threat. Cops have the discretion to determine this in the field. If they suck at it, or pervert it, it comes out in court.

a reply to: stolencar18

Alright, you and your buddy are ganging up on me here.

Susane Ravn(sp) of the Brevard County Sheriff's office was in the wrong and assaulted my aging parents over a bogus noise complaint.

It is obvious what you guys are doing here. Flooding this thread with police apologists style posts, in hopes the layman sides with you guys.

Police brutality is a serious issue that needs to be addressed in the US. Blindly justifying the actions of over zealous police aggressors is not progress in tackling this very real and present danger citizens of the United States face.

originally posted by: stolencar18

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: stevieray

I've posted the officer's name on here before and more details, dont want to do it again just to shut you up.

I rather not you keep casting doubt on me. It appears you are just posting to blindly defend the police here.

None of us know what happened here, especially you. The apparent fact is the police kicked down a door without warrant and killed an apparent innocent man.

I do know the police will lie to cover their asses and protect each other from just legal actions.

I'm going to rephrase your speculative statement from another perspective.
The police made an inquiry at a door and were met with resistance to their questioning and this caused suspicion for the officer, who followed through with his legal authority and entered the premises forcefully.

Refusing to answer questions does not provide reasonable suspicion. Or as you said, resistance to questioning does not provide reasonable suspicion.

originally posted by: sputniksteve
a reply to: stolencar18

I think you should probably just relax. You aren't going to fight Boohoo, and arguing like you are certainly isn't going to change their mind, or most likely anyone elses. Refusing to acknowledge there might be a problem, is kind of the problem. It is pretty obvious which way your bias leans and that is fine, we all have opinions but burying your head in the sand isn't going to help anything either.

I don't think it's burying my head in the sand. I think quite the opposite. I admitted in another post that there are bad cops, but I went on to say that I think the majority of cops that are accused of being "bad cops" are not actually bad. The accusations are false in so many cases, but the problem is that it doesn't matter what an investigation shows. The investigation is conducted by another authority (another police force, IA, another government branch, etc) and the suspicion persists, even if the investigation shows the cop is clean.

If the general public had this much scrutiny and every wrongdoing was published and analysed by a million twitter users I think our police force would start to look pretty clean.

The focus is on our police force because people have ego's and think they can do whatever they want and the law doesn't apply to them so they accuse the cops of stuff whenever THEY get in trouble.

I 100% agree there are bad cops. I 100% disagree that my head is in the sand. The entire premise of this thread is judging the cop without a single fact or investigation. Just throw him under the bus because he has a badge.

How many times a year does some thug bust down a door and kill people - citizen on citizen crime. Nobody says a word about that. What about every other crime.

I bet that if there were 1000 instances where an armed civilian kicked down another civilians door and shot him for some reason it would get less attention than the anti-cop crowd is giving to this one. It isn't right to judge someone without facts, but everyone here gets on the bandwagon. It's sick.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: stolencar18

Alright, you and your buddy are ganging up on me here.

Susane Ravn(sp) of the Brevard County Sheriff's office was in the wrong and assaulted my aging parents over a bogus noise complaint.

It is obvious what you guys are doing here. Flooding this thread with police apologists style posts, in hopes the layman sides with you guys.

Police brutality is a serious issue that needs to be addressed in the US. Blindly justifying the actions of over zealous police aggressors is not progress in tackling this very real and present danger citizens of the United States face.

I will agree - police brutality is a serious issue that needs attention.

Can we stop convicting cops on ATS without any evidence though? I've happily jumped on a few anti-cop wagons because I've seen evidence that looked pretty solid against the cop, but those are the minority. This thread is a joke. "Buddy said the cop kicked the door in on a polite dad who built his own deck and was a really nice guy". That's the entire story basically. How is that even taken seriously?

originally posted by: stolencar18
a reply to: boohoo

Why don't we cut the crap?
The under 40 crowd is not a minority, and I never said that. The "anti cop" crowd, which MOST of the under 40 crowd is not a part of, is a minority (you can believe otherwise - the vast majority of people are pro-cop and just go about their lives without yapping).

It doesn't matter how many people you THINK are on your side or how much rhetoric you spit out. I'll take my chances with 100 random cops before 100 random non-cops any day of the week.

Also...to say that cops should be forced to restrain themselves to the point of not defending their own lives (you said even if they die), that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Everyone - including cops - has the right to defend their own safety and lives.

I agree that the "hate cops" crowd is mostly sub-40, maybe sub-30. As Churchill said, if you stay liberal as you get older, you're just foolish. Real world experience should lead to a little more common sense and logic when dealing with daily life. Especially running around declaring that cops are evil, rather than just another subset of humanity that has the same percentages of bad guys, good guys, average guys, etc. I've seen several groups of cops in courtrooms recently, and while they were primarily young, you could pick out a very well distributed group of types. There were hard guys that looked like they just got off the football field, maybe pushy jackasses. There were fat, sort of self-conscious looking guys. There were bookish looking guys with glasses. There were totally average looking Opie Taylors.

Also, the "punk" attitude is absolutely a young phenomenon, which is typically most acute before you have a family, a career, a long-term community. Just your normal wiseass, big mouth, asinine fellow who's of course smarter than everybody else.
And this would be your classic cop hater. Throw in a few arrests, some general fail and bitterness about that....the full package.

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby

originally posted by: stolencar18

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: stevieray

I've posted the officer's name on here before and more details, dont want to do it again just to shut you up.

I rather not you keep casting doubt on me. It appears you are just posting to blindly defend the police here.

None of us know what happened here, especially you. The apparent fact is the police kicked down a door without warrant and killed an apparent innocent man.

I do know the police will lie to cover their asses and protect each other from just legal actions.

I'm going to rephrase your speculative statement from another perspective.
The police made an inquiry at a door and were met with resistance to their questioning and this caused suspicion for the officer, who followed through with his legal authority and entered the premises forcefully.

Refusing to answer questions does not provide reasonable suspicion. Or as you said, resistance to questioning does not provide reasonable suspicion.

Maybe it does. It depends what was said.

Officer: Hey is Joe here?
Buddy: Nope, and you can't check unless you get a warrant.

I made that up, but it's one example of how an answer can be suspicious. Or maybe the cop saw something over the guys shoulder. Who knows? That's the entire point I'm making. We don't know jack about the story except some hearsay.

originally posted by: stolencar18
The under 40 crowd is not a minority, and I never said that. The "anti cop" crowd, which MOST of the under 40 crowd is not a part of, is a minority (you can believe otherwise - the vast majority of people are pro-cop and just go about their lives without yapping).

It doesn't matter how many people you THINK are on your side or how much rhetoric you spit out. I'll take my chances with 100 random cops before 100 random non-cops any day of the week.

originally posted by: stevieray
Also, the "punk" attitude is absolutely a young phenomenon, which is typically most acute before you have a family, a career, a long-term community. Just your normal wiseass, big mouth, asinine fellow who's of course smarter than everybody else.
And this would be your classic cop hater. Throw in a few arrests, some general fail and bitterness about that....the full package.

Surely you mean, 100 Revenue Generators, correct?

Again, the 40 and under crowd is not primarily "anti-cop" because they believe that LEO's are a dangerous lethal threat, the 40 and under crowd is "anti-cop" because they ABSOLUTELY believe LEO's are "revenue collectors", as I noted with my story about the de-funded police force in a middle class town made up of 92%, nearly retirement age, whites.

If LEO's can't hold the trust of small communities with these kinds of demographics, what chance do they stand elsewhere? Not much.

originally posted by: stolencar18
a reply to: boohoo

Your #1-6 is complete bull, as well. Just because you can copy and paste crap from other threads and sites doesn't make an ounce of it true.

The truth: 99.999% of officers are indeed protecting and serving their communities, with a good conscience and heart.

So, I'm not allowed to reference my own past posts? Also note, those six items are NOT a new, original, idea and have been floating around the inter-webs since about 2005. But if you look back, you'll see that I have elaborated quite a bit on the details of why those items are related to one another. I have to assume you are aware that ideas DO EVOLVE through discussion.

Police Arrest Public Defender For Defending Her Client

Lawyers rail against 'unlawful' jailing of public defender for shielding client

Supreme Court rules Ignorance of the Law IS an excuse for Officers

NYPD Showing Massive Presence in Grand Central for Expected Protest

Police threat in US too high

Sheriff's Lieutenant Disciplined for Telling County Board He Set Ticket Quotas

BTW, THANK YOU for confirming #6

Contemporary LEOs have proven, through their actions, that they are in place to do the following and NOTHING MORE:

1. Protect themselves.
2. Maximize their total compensation.
3. Act as a source of revenue generation for the department currently employing them, the union they belong to and the local governments authorizing their activities.
4. Protecting the commercial interests of national corporations (with PAC's lobbying on the behalf of the big corporations)
5. Protecting the private property and political interests of large, influential, land & business owners, residing within their jurisdiction, that contribute to and participate in local politics (i.e. campaign donations for Police Chief and Sheriff elections).
6. Controlling dissenting narratives that would interfere with 1-5.

originally posted by: stolencar18
Also...to say that cops should be forced to restrain themselves to the point of not defending their own lives (you said even if they die), that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Everyone - including cops - has the right to defend their own safety and lives.

Ahh...so you AGREE with me, people DO have the RIGHT to defend their own safety and lives!!!

LEO leadership has chosen not to prosecute these criminals and politicians have decided to not change the laws that would force LEO leadership to act differently. If your life is in danger from a police officer, you simply have no choice, TODAY, but, to defend yourself.

As others have said, these days, you can end up one of two ways, after a combative LEO encounter, ALIVE to be tried by a jury or DEAD being named as evidence in a lawsuit.

a reply to: stolencar18

I am certainly not about to argue with you, I wouldn't have said anything I said if I didn't believe it. If you think that I am wrong, that's fine but you probably won't change my mind. I can only base my opinion on what I read from you in this thread, and it isn't that positive in my opinion.

The difference between criminials perpetrating crimes and police perpetrating crimes is large, we expect criminals to do that. Police on the other hand are paid by our taxes, and are "supposed" to not be perpetrating crimes at even the worst of times, yet here we are. Therefore we make a little bit of a bigger deal when they do it. They are in a trusted position where we all basically put our lives in their hands, for we are truly at their mercy as you have so elegantly shown us.

a reply to: stolencar18

It is pretty sick to judge people without the facts isn't it? Pretty sick to execute them without the facts as well. Just saying. Head in sand.

a reply to: stolencar18

Boohoo...formal apology here. I don't mean any offense to you on this. I strongly disagree with most of the anti-cop sentiments, and I very firmly believe that the vast majority of cops are excellent people who have our best interests in mind, and the law. It ticks me off when people make stuff up and the cop doesn't even get a chance (like in this thread).

Nobody gives a damn when a cop saves a baby from a burning car or the other million things cops do every day to make us safer or literally save our lives (or property). Very rarely do people post on here about how some thug on the street is so bad because of X, Y, or Z. It's always "anti authority".

Now, I get the premise of this site, but with the "Deny Ignorance" mantra in mind, let us not be so quick to ignorantly (without knowledge) hold up every police brutality claim as God's truth. Let's look at the facts, or the absence of facts. We can have opinions, but it's unfair to say this cop murdered the guy, and it's dishonest. He killed him, yes, but that isn't necessarily murder. And was the guy innocent? We don't know yet. Maybe he was. Maybe not.

Deny ignorance people. Get facts. Base your opinions on facts.

And boohoo...Sorry for wigging out man.

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby

originally posted by: stolencar18

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: stevieray

I've posted the officer's name on here before and more details, dont want to do it again just to shut you up.

I rather not you keep casting doubt on me. It appears you are just posting to blindly defend the police here.

None of us know what happened here, especially you. The apparent fact is the police kicked down a door without warrant and killed an apparent innocent man.

I do know the police will lie to cover their asses and protect each other from just legal actions.

I'm going to rephrase your speculative statement from another perspective.
The police made an inquiry at a door and were met with resistance to their questioning and this caused suspicion for the officer, who followed through with his legal authority and entered the premises forcefully.

Refusing to answer questions does not provide reasonable suspicion. Or as you said, resistance to questioning does not provide reasonable suspicion.

Yes, it does in a lot of circumstances. If they're searching for a kidnap victim or somebody else that needs to be saved, acting like a loud pompous jackass may very well be the tell that's needed to find someone. That's why it's important to intelligently, quietly talk to the cops, especially when disagreeing. And look like you have the least, slightest interest in what's good for anything else but yourself. If your only interest is in running your mouth, and not being part of helping a victim, you already deserve a kick in the ass. If not from the cops, then the victim's family.

We don't actually live in YouTube, where everybody's a lawyer and constitutional scholar. Especially when they're not smarter than yelling obscenities and acting the gyrating fool.

I always think of the perfect example on the cops shows. Every moron they have to deal with is filming with their camera, spouting the most moronic legal claims possible, fidgeting and farking around and avoiding eye contact, lying through their teeth, and then when the cop gives up and tries to cuff them, they flop around yelling "I'm not resisting I'm not resisting" while resisting totally in various passive-aggressive schemes. Flopping, going limp, rolling, crapping their pants.

These are the kind of people you're trying to defend by saying everything's the cops' fault, lol.

originally posted by: sputniksteve
a reply to: stolencar18

It is pretty sick to judge people without the facts isn't it? Pretty sick to execute them without the facts as well. Just saying. Head in sand.

You don't recognize that this is precisely what's done at the cops in every one of these threads ?

Bizarre.