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: 9
85
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: stolencar18
a reply to: Bedlam

Apparently you forget reasonable suspicion is. Not saying that was the case, but there are conditions where LEO can enter without a warrant.

I don't know why everyone on here thinks a warrant is mandatory 100% of the time.

This entire thing reeks of cop haters making crap up. The entire story. You guys should all be ashamed. You have less than half the story and zero proof at all and you're ready to hang the guy.

Can he lawfully enter without a warrant? Yes.
Is his statement being considered by you? No.
Has any evidence, such as dash cams, body cams, local video, etc been provided? No, but it may not exist.
Any forensics analysed and factored in yet? No.

Your ENTIRE story is "This other guy said that the cop busted the door down and shot him, so it must be true".

If ATS confirmed conspiracies around 9/11, Area 51, Bigfoot, and aliens the same way ATS crucifies cops this site would be out of material.


If a police officer knocks on my door and asks for A, and I tell him A does not live here anymore. He asks if he can enter and search for A, and I tell the cop that A doesn't live here anymore. Where is the reasonable suspicion, unless the cop saw A sitting on the couch?

On the other hand, if I let the police in, and we have contraband, ie illegal drugs, they can arrest everyone in the house and haul us off, really you are all for this?




posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: THEatsking

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: infolurker

I'm guessing there won't be any rioting in North Carolina? Why not? This isn't a vague racist remark. This is a serious question. WHY NOT?!

Why are white communities so docile when it comes to allowing themselves to be abused? I always hear of how black communities are "bad" because they react to injustices but that's how it should be. When police do this, it needs to cost the city money. Every time. Eventually, the folks in charge will realize that it's far more cost-effective to promote better training and stricter punishment for cops than to defend them in court all the time.

Wow, I think we have a racist.
White folks don't riot, we vote, we contact our representatives in congress, we write letters to the local paper. There may be more than a few that will do more, but most of us are working and trying to make a living and pay the bills.


Seriously, really, I have no phobias, not sure why you thought that was racist, I was replying to another poster that called out white folks to riot. I honestly think you are the first person to call me a racist in my 55 years of life, congrats, I ought to find a prize for you.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Komodo

originally posted by: BubbaJoe
Not defending these officers actions. LEO's experience stress that most of us don't experience in our lives, was an automotive machinist, that set of chevy 350 heads in no way threatened my life. Walk a mile in another's moccasins and all of that, but mental health exams need to be performed.


well....

this isn't about feelings of stress ....which officers ARE or should be trained for ..

it's about the Civil Rights, period and upholding those Rights as the highest Law in the land...and making those crimes against our God given rights so harsh, this action would NEVER come up in a court of law...why? Because if we are slack and turn a blind eye...that door could be yours, mine and our children and Grand-children, NO ONE would be safe and the Republic becomes nothing and Democracy becomes Dictatorial....and then they will finally shout.."Welcome to the New World Order!"

70 years ago, Brown shirts turned Grey, then turned pitch Black...we must never forget.





I would agree, as I said in my original post, I have known the good, the bad, and the ugly of LEO's. Grew up a somewhat radical white boy in small town Missouri.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: stolencar18
a reply to: Bedlam

Apparently you forget reasonable suspicion is. Not saying that was the case, but there are conditions where LEO can enter without a warrant.


This is not one of them. You would have to observe the man in the vicinity of the home immediately before the forced entry, or see him flee into the home. You can't just say 'I think he's in there, raar!', or there would be no need for warrants at all, right? Probable cause and reasonable suspicion require a clear, articulable and immediate reason to proceed. The cop would have to hear the man inside, or see him through a window, or watch him enter the home. An old address listing does not make for reasonable suspicion.



I don't know why everyone on here thinks a warrant is mandatory 100% of the time.


They don't. Which is why I said "short of observing the man entering the residence", which the cop, of course, did not.



This entire thing reeks of cop haters making crap up. The entire story. You guys should all be ashamed. You have less than half the story and zero proof at all and you're ready to hang the guy.


The man is dead. The SO is not denying that the cop entered without a warrant. Had a warrant existed, the press would have it, or the cops would tout it. Neither has occurred. It is reasonable to assume that one did not exist, as it would be public record if it did.



Can he lawfully enter without a warrant? Yes.


Only under very narrow circumstances which did not exist in this case.



Your ENTIRE story is "This other guy said that the cop busted the door down and shot him, so it must be true".


My ENTIRE story is, the cop unlawfully forced entry into a domicile after being told to leave the man's curtilage until a warrant issued. The cop then committed a felony, and the rest occurred from that. What actually happened inside the home is moot. If NC has felony murder, the cop and his partner are both in trouble, if the DA has any cojones.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray
lol, yes, like slamming a door in the cops' face, as though there's something that needs to be hidden from them.

That just MAY cause a cop to come on in. Amazing how simple logic and obvious likelihoods are avoided like the plague, in the greater effort to make the cops 100% guilty of everything. Never the fault of the guy with a rap sheet a mile long, lol.


Refusing entry to an officer who does not have a warrant has case law behind it. And that law states that police cannot use refusal to search as reasonable suspicion.

Again, if that were true, why bother with the fourth amendment at all? Because every encounter would be -

cop: I have no proof, and no warrant, yet I would like to search your home
homeowner: no. Get a warrant.
cop: rar! Your refusal makes me suspicious, so now I invoke reasonable suspicion!

The courts long ago stomped that one. So go try again.
edit on 17-11-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: stolencar18

Warrantless searches can be performed if the officer fears for their safety or the publics. Not necessarily life or death.


A Terry pat-down is not a forced home entry. Damn, man, they can't even reach into your pocket unless they can clearly identify a weapon.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray
Somebody slams the door on the cops and they just quietly walk away.....they own whatever that person's doing behind that door. Could be nothing or could be Dahmer getting ready to eat somebody, or the guys in Cleveland with the girls hidden away for 10 years.


Except in this case, they're looking for someone using an old address. They do NOT see the person running into the house. They were too lazy to get a warrant, or the judge wouldn't issue one. So they asked, and he refused, told them to leave, and they did not.

At that moment, they are into constructive trespass. But when they forced entry, that's a felony.

It's really clear. Cops do NOT have the authority to enter in that case. It doesn't matter if they get a creepy feeling, or just KNOW that they're up to something. Because we have laws for that sort of thing, and the cops are on the wrong side of it. There are very specific instances when cops can enter without a warrant, and this is not it.

If they really wanted to do it the right way, they'd have got on the radio and gotten a warrant while waiting there to see if the guy came out. Then they could have searched their happy asses off. But they couldn't be bothered, and they caused the entire situation when they broke and entered by force.



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Yepper doo.

These officers employed what is called here in NC the "knock and talk" initially to ascertain if the person in question was at the residence. Then proceeded to try to get consent for a search voluntarily from the resident. This procedure is outlined in North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 15 Article 9. When consent was not given, that should have been the end of it. A relevant case decide by the NC Supreme court on similar conduct was State of North Carolina v. Kenneth E. Smith No.309PA96 (1997).

Articles 10 and 11 of Chapter 15 also outline NC's criminal procedure in regard to search and seizures and search warrants.

Even in the context of "Urgent Necessity", where officers can enter premises or vehicles without consent, we clearly see that NCGS 15A-285 (Chapter 15, Article 15) states "an action taken to enforce the law, seize a person, or evidence cannot be justified by this section."

NC even errs on the side of the "plain view doctrine" not being enough to "warrant" further nonconsentual [and now unwarranted] scrutiny.


edit on 17-11-2015 by J.B. Aloha because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   
No need to state on an internet forum what your intent would be. I know full well what would happen in my home and most others do as well.

Overreach is only tolerated for so long. And its a long road because already, people are tired of the nonsense.

Violence, begets violence. There are 320 million Americans, how many of those are in law enforcement? Maybe it's time to scale it back?



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 12:42 AM
link   

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

Yepper doo.

These officers employed what is called here in NC the "knock and talk" initially to ascertain if the person in question was at the residence. Then proceeded to try to get consent for a search voluntarily from the resident. This procedure is outlined in North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 15 Article 9. When consent was not given, that should have been the end of it.


Given the dribble of info that's been presented, so far, my GUESS, and it's totally my guess at this point, is that one of the officers, faced with the shock of being told to shove off until they had a warrant, stuck a hand or foot in the door as it was closing. ("one of the deputies received minor injuries")

But I'm guessing the 'minor injury' was caused when they tried to wedge the door open with something and got slammed in it. Then, of course, they went ape# due to frustration, anger and a bruised toe that they caused themselves.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Yup NC has some twisted protection on the books for warrantless search and actions. This not me saying I agree with them but they're there on the books for people to read. SC is just as bad as well. It's how the police are getting away with all the shootings. One of the reason I think they need to change them or at least put something in place to bring them back down to level. At least something along the line of, if police fail to follow procedure and in doing so harm or kill another they can no long be tried as law enforcement. All charges would be filed on them as if they where a normal citizen.

So in this case not only would this officer have murder charges placed on him but B&E as well, and maybe a few other if you want to get creative.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: stevieray

We get it. You love cops, so much you will defend them when they murder people. That is clear.

What isn't clear is why, but I am not so interested as to ask. I just chalk it up there are all types in the world.


You use the word murder. There was no murder, at least not supported by the facts...YET. There was a killing. A killing that at this point has not resulted in charges. It may, but it hasn't.

Killings aren't necessarily murders. Just because you choose to pre-judge the guy doesn't mean you're right.

You know, I'll catch hell for this, but at some point we have to wonder if we're unfairly discriminating against law enforcement. There's sexism, racism, etc. Not sure what you'd call this, but for decades people have painted cops with a bad brush even though the vast majority are great people.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: stevieray
lol, yes, like slamming a door in the cops' face, as though there's something that needs to be hidden from them.

That just MAY cause a cop to come on in. Amazing how simple logic and obvious likelihoods are avoided like the plague, in the greater effort to make the cops 100% guilty of everything. Never the fault of the guy with a rap sheet a mile long, lol.


Refusing entry to an officer who does not have a warrant has case law behind it. And that law states that police cannot use refusal to search as reasonable suspicion.

Again, if that were true, why bother with the fourth amendment at all? Because every encounter would be -

cop: I have no proof, and no warrant, yet I would like to search your home
homeowner: no. Get a warrant.
cop: rar! Your refusal makes me suspicious, so now I invoke reasonable suspicion!

The courts long ago stomped that one. So go try again.


You're speculating. For all you know the cop saw a bazooka on the coffee table over the guys shoulder. Reasonable suspicion exists in many forms.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Damn, I'm good.

The deputy forced entry and attacked the man because he stuck his foot in the door trying to stop Livingston from shutting the door.

When Livingston pulled the door shut on his shoe, he attacked him.

However, the deputy putting his foot inside the door without warrant, probable cause, exigence, or hot pursuit is a home invasion, forced entry legally. He can't cross the plane of the door, especially when told to leave.

We'll now see if the DA has any cojones, or if the cop union has bought him off. If the cop attacked and forced entry after HE violated the man's home then it's felony murder, if the DA has any balls at all.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: stolencar18

You're speculating. For all you know the cop saw a bazooka on the coffee table over the guys shoulder. Reasonable suspicion exists in many forms.


Right. That's why they have brought that up...oh wait, they have stopped talking and are circling the wagons.

No warrant. No probable cause, no exigence, no reasonable suspicion. They were told to leave, decided to stick a shoe in the door, that's all it takes for forced entry while armed, under color of law.

Time for the prosecutor to show his colors.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Yup a shoe in the door no matter how small it may sound is enough to count as breaking in. It also gives any person in the building at the time the right to defend themselves. The union might try to bury this one. They would be better off dropping the guy from it and letting face the heat on his own.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

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

Yepper doo.

These officers employed what is called here in NC the "knock and talk" initially to ascertain if the person in question was at the residence. Then proceeded to try to get consent for a search voluntarily from the resident. This procedure is outlined in North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 15 Article 9. When consent was not given, that should have been the end of it.


Given the dribble of info that's been presented, so far, my GUESS, and it's totally my guess at this point, is that one of the officers, faced with the shock of being told to shove off until they had a warrant, stuck a hand or foot in the door as it was closing. ("one of the deputies received minor injuries")

But I'm guessing the 'minor injury' was caused when they tried to wedge the door open with something and got slammed in it. Then, of course, they went ape# due to frustration, anger and a bruised toe that they caused themselves.

You are the best remote viewer and mind reader that I've met in a long time !

Legal and constitutional scholar as well. Wiki U. Law School ?

I think I'll wait for the courts. They and the judge will actually vet the actions of the officers and civilians, and come up with a truly informed opinion.

And I won't complain one bit when it goes either way. But I'll bet you a whole pack of hyenas on ATS will start screaming that the judge, jury and everybody else within arm's reach are corrupt, racist, sexist, homophobe, xenophobe, puritan cro magnons.....if they find the cops not guilty.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: stolencar18

You're speculating. For all you know the cop saw a bazooka on the coffee table over the guys shoulder. Reasonable suspicion exists in many forms.


Right. That's why they have brought that up...oh wait, they have stopped talking and are circling the wagons.

No warrant. No probable cause, no exigence, no reasonable suspicion. They were told to leave, decided to stick a shoe in the door, that's all it takes for forced entry while armed, under color of law.

Time for the prosecutor to show his colors.


aahhhh ! Prosecutor "show his colors" !! Meaning, if he doesn't agree with you that the cops are guilty.....bad colors ?

Pre-emptive blasting of the people who will judge, just in case they "get it wrong". lol

I love you guys and this template !



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: ObjectZero
Yup NC has some twisted protection on the books for warrantless search and actions. This not me saying I agree with them but they're there on the books for people to read. SC is just as bad as well. It's how the police are getting away with all the shootings. One of the reason I think they need to change them or at least put something in place to bring them back down to level. At least something along the line of, if police fail to follow procedure and in doing so harm or kill another they can no long be tried as law enforcement. All charges would be filed on them as if they where a normal citizen.

So in this case not only would this officer have murder charges placed on him but B&E as well, and maybe a few other if you want to get creative.

This can't be. This policy / statute can not exist....other folks here have stated that what they did is wholly illegal.

How did they act totally illegally......but there's evil laws allowing them to do what they did ?

Somebody flip a coin....pick one.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: stevieray

In SC it's SECTION 16-23-410. It's a very open ended law that allows police to take action agents know felons even without an active warrant. This also applies to people the police see commit a crime. But it allows the police immunity other laws while trying to bring a felon in. This includes needing a warrant for search and entry.

If NC has a similar law base in place, which they most likely do. I'm not going to look this one up NC uses PDF's for all the books and it's a pain to look for the one you need. This would still not grant this officer immunity in this case. Since he couldn't ID any felon from the door way. Plus the officer can't claim assault due to the door being shut on his foot. Not unless the guy ripped the door from the hinges and threw it at him or grabbed the cop and hit the door with the cop.




top topics



 
85
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join