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.

 

State Trooper Throwing Owner Off His Own Property

page: 2
39
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
First off, the officer could of handeled himself alittle better with gathering identification before telling him to leave.

Secondly, it was never stated in the video if the old guy was or was not on his own property.

Third, if the man WAS issued the court order earlier, and it's documented that he was (which the officer stated he was), then the officer doesnt have to produce it to make an arrest. It's kind of like a Restraining Order. It MUST being issued to both parties before it becomes enacted. Once issued, an officer can make an arrest if violated.

Just playing Devil's Advocate.


Point taken..but the cop didnt even know who the man was.

Also..you have to take in mind..IF the man had been issued a court order..then the cop would have said that when the camera man asked why is he being arrested.

He just made up some stupid excuse, basically..

So..looks to me like he wasnt breaking a court order..or the officer would have said it.




posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Anyone stop to think perhaps the old guy had a restraining order out against him for threatening someone or their property. Once the cop found out who he was he told him to leave which he refused. THere is NO WAY that this man could have been on his own property. No cop is so stupid as to arrest someone for refusing to leave their own property.
It was amusing seeing the cop get flustered though.
The dude may have been dangerous, we don't know.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   
What we have here .... ta da da dum .... nothing but assumptions in this thread.

No proof. No follow up. No evidence. Not even any indication that this was this person's personal property and not some piece of commercial property.

What a waste of time. Stupid YouTube video and a thread full of a bunch of posters who "appear" to simply jump on the bandwagon instead of finding out what's really going on.




posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   
I think the cop handled the situation pretty well.

He went into the situation with very little to go on. He was polite. He did everything possible to get the man to cooperate with him and finally did what he had to do.

That's what I call true professionalism.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Well, yes there are assumptions..but as I and a couple other posters pointed out..

When asked what the arrest charges were..the officer said..failure to comply with the lawful order of a police officer..

He didnt say he had an ARREST WARRANT..or an order of removal.

.there was NOTHING whatsoever given for this arrest, except the man stood up for his rights and said he wasnt leaving.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Yummy Freelunch
 


What rights?

If he was not on his own property, there are no rights.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

The state trooper stated that he was no longer allowed on the property because of a court order, which means he is trespassing, and by refusing to leave he refused the lawful order of a police officer. Legally I will bet you this guy does not have a leg to stand on as the officer seemed to be there specifically to deal with this gentleman. The officer also mentioned that the man was walking along the public highway along the property, which to me says he is spying/stalking whatever is going on with the property. There is not one shred of evidence in that video that the man holds currant claim or title to the land he was on, and they do not place officers out on someone’s property for no good reason.

The court order can be anything from a notice of eviction, a divorce, an injunction, a notice of foreclosure, etc, but whatever it is the court obviously disagrees that this man now holds any claim to the land.

Often when people lose their property in a manner which they feel is unjust, even if its legally just, they act like this guy in the video did and they try and push that the property is still theirs. It’s a big problem right now with short sales & foreclosures where the previous owner refuses to leave before the new owner takes possession. People feel they were cheated by the banks causing the foreclosure, therefore they feel justified in their refusal to leave as justice was not served in their opinion.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yummy Freelunch

Point taken..but the cop didnt even know who the man was.



Sure he didn't "KNOW" who the man was, but I'm sure he had a pretty good frickin idea that he was the guy he was looking for!



Also..you have to take in mind..IF the man had been issued a court order..then the cop would have said that when the camera man asked why is he being arrested.


Why would he have said that? Do cops have to tell bystanders why they are arresting people? Ever heard of the rights of the accused?



He just made up some stupid excuse, basically..

So..looks to me like he wasnt breaking a court order..or the officer would have said it.


Again, why?



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by Yummy Freelunch
 


What rights?

If he was not on his own property, there are no rights.





Who is to say it ISNT his property...and it is HIS right and well as everyone else's to be shown an arrest warrant or order of removal..



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I think the cop handled the situation pretty well.

He went into the situation with very little to go on. He was polite. He did everything possible to get the man to cooperate with him and finally did what he had to do.

That's what I call true professionalism.


Except that arresting the cameraman was likely far beyond his authority. He can't, by law, disturb the peace of a peace officer - the definition precludes it. He can't claim to be afraid that the camera was a weapon, or that the cameraman was in any way interfering, nor is it likely that the officer can make a disorderly conduct charge stick - it fails every test in Kansas state law. The cameraman was not interfering in the activity of a fireman or medical professional, nor obstructing traffic, nor impeding the ingress or exit of a building. He was not rioting, nor inciting to riot. He wasn't vagrant, nor loitering.

About the only thing I can imagine would be if this was private property that was being trespassed on - you can't tell from the context. Kansas is a one-party wiretapping state, so he can't claim that it's unlawful to record his activity - the recorder is present and the recordee has no presumption of being private. His order "put the camera down" does not bear the color of law, it is not a lawful order.

edit: even if it WERE trespassing, the LEO would have had to order the cameraman to leave the property, not to put the camera down. You'll notice also that he did not order the cameraman to leave the area prior to the arrest, which he actually might have been able to do under color of law as self-protection from being rushed by the man's friend while effecting the arrest. He instead orders him to stop recording - which is going to blow any chance he's got of making a charge stick, and will open him up to false arrest charges. I'll be looking forward to see how it comes out.

[edit on 29-6-2010 by Bedlam]



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by RestingInPieces

Originally posted by Yummy Freelunch

Point taken..but the cop didnt even know who the man was.



Sure he didn't "KNOW" who the man was, but I'm sure he had a pretty good frickin idea that he was the guy he was looking for!



Also..you have to take in mind..IF the man had been issued a court order..then the cop would have said that when the camera man asked why is he being arrested.


Why would he have said that? Do cops have to tell bystanders why they are arresting people? Ever heard of the rights of the accused?



He just made up some stupid excuse, basically..

So..looks to me like he wasnt breaking a court order..or the officer would have said it.


Again, why?


Then why did the cop bother to answer at all..why did he give a reason for arresting the man at all..

Anyway..I still like it!



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Try criminal trespass…Possibly even stalking or violating a injunction, and again he also refused to follow the officers orders, which sticks even if the initial arrest was only for trespassing.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Try criminal trespass…Possibly even stalking or violating a injunction, and again he also refused to follow the officers orders, which sticks even if the initial arrest was only for trespassing.


I was arrested for trespassing when I was 17, for sleeping in a cabin by the river..which wasnt mine..lol..anyway..

They TOLD me why they were arresting me, trespass..they didnt TELL me to just leave!!!!!



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Try criminal trespass…Possibly even stalking or violating a injunction, and again he also refused to follow the officers orders, which sticks even if the initial arrest was only for trespassing.


The old man might have been at risk for criminal trespass, however, you'll note that the officer did not ever order the cameraman to depart. He ordered him to stop recording. The officer cannot order him to stop recording - it's not a lawful order. Recording officers' activity is not unlawful in Kansas.

edit: Didn't even order him to stop recording until after the arrest, either. If he were in fear for his safety, he would have ordered the cameraman to leave, which he could have done, even if it were questionably legal. However, "put the camera down" and "stop recording" are not lawful orders, any more than "do a tap dance" or "take off all your clothes and do the funky chicken".

[edit on 29-6-2010 by Bedlam]



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Yummy Freelunch
 

This guy knows why he was not allowed on the land, there was a court order issued against him which means that a process server came and found him, delivered paperwork to him, he probably showed up in court, and obviously lost. Its not a quick process, and the statements of the officer tell us this is someone who knowingly keeps trying to get back on property that the court has told them is no longer theirs. If he caused the owner enough problems they most likely went an filed an additional injunction against the man which means he can be arrested on sight for being within so many feet of the property.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


These are all assumptions, as well.

I didnt hear the officer say he had been issued a court order..where was that.
He was so tongue tied..

And we dont know the whole story here, actually..this man's wife could be trying to take this property..I mean..anyone can make a phone call and get someone hassled..you can call on your neighbor and claim child abuse and CFS will be at their door..just examples..



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Rather then speculate lets see what we can find out about it…
From the other Youtube version of this video:

State trooper, keeping owner of truck wholesale off his own property without a court order. It seems nowadays that officers cross the line and get away with it. Lets stand up against police brutality...please pass this on and help owner of truck wholesale, Danny Lambeth and son Joe Lambeth.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
[edit on 29-6-2010 by LadySkadi]



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
I am as frustrated by the "bad apples" of law enforcement as the next guy, but this video proves only two things.

1 - There's more to this situation than is shown on this video.

2 - There was no mention of who owns this property.

"Throwing owner off his own property" ?? So am I missing something here?
The title of this thread is misleading and should be changed!



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
UPDATE!!!!

Found this on THIS Link....




State trooper, keeping owner of truck wholesale off his own property without a court order. It seems nowadays that officers cross the line and get away with it. Lets stand up against police brutality...please pass this on and help owner of truck wholesale, Danny Lambeth and son Joe Lambeth.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join