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.

 

What happens when you see an unmarked car on your property and some guy snooping around

page: 6
25
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Here's more of my "lies"



Police officers do not normally have the authority to go onto private property, which is not open to the public, and remove individuals or request them to leave without the consent or authority of the property owner. If an officer observes someone on private property when the business is closed, or a problem is reported by someone who does not have the authority to sign a trespass complaint, the police department must contact the person who is legally responsible for the property.


www.cityofsalem.net...

If what the cop did in the OP wasn't illegal, then why do cops need to have a "trespass letter of consent" or authorization from the owner in all other cases?

Notice this states 2 things that coincide with the OP.

1. When the business is closed.

2. A problem is reported by someone who does not have the authority to sign a trespass complaint.

Notice at least one of these criterion are satisfied (possibly both) in this situation?

[edit on 28-8-2010 by Nutter]




posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Edit - Nevermind. This will just go on forever, so I'm just going to take my leave.

Bottom line is, we know next to nothing about what happened here. Making assumptions is pointless.

[edit on 28-8-2010 by Jenna]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 07:39 AM
link   
I was curious what Nutter said on his last post on page 5 regarding business property versus personal/home/private property since next door to me didn't guarantee the same piece of property. I tried the parcel listing from the Spokane County public records to no avail. (It wouldn't let me direct link; use the property search link if interested and enter 14208 E 4th Ave, Spokane Valley in the appropriate fields). The listing jumps from 12903 E 4th Ave to 15122 E 4th Ave. Maybe someone more knowledgeable on the subject could assist. I did however find the lots outlined on the street map tab of Google Maps and overlayed it on the satellite tab. I left the relevant areas at full opacity showing what looked like the parking lots and what's presumably the house while reducing the rest to show the lots. It appears that the entire Plant Farm and a house are all within one lot according to this. I'm not familiar enough with the law to make any comments on what this mean having a full fledged commercial business and a private residence on the same lot but am rather just supplying information.



reply to post by Nutter
 

I'm more than curious why you're posting a link to a different city and state than where the incident occurred. Your link takes me to Salem, OR while the incident took place in Spokane Valley, WA. If you're going to find supporting evidence at least find it from the correct place.


[edit on 8/28/2010 by Three_moons]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
Bottom line is, we know next to nothing about what happened here. Making assumptions is pointless.


We do know that the police used a man's property to conduct a stakeout with the property owner's permission. Bottom line.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Three_moons
I'm more than curious why you're posting a link to a different city and state than where the incident occurred. Your link takes me to Salem, OR while the incident took place in Spokane Valley, WA. If you're going to find supporting evidence at least find it from the correct place.



I have e-mailed the Spokane , WA police department to ask what their stakeout procedures are and whether they are able to conduct a stakeout on private property without the property owner's consent.

It says that my e-mail will be answered in 3 to 5 days. We'll see what they say.

On another note: Can you find ANY proof that a cop can use private property for a stakeout without permission? I can't.

[edit on 28-8-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by Nutter
Here's more of my "lies"



Police officers do not normally have the authority to go onto private property, which is not open to the public, and remove individuals or request them to leave without the consent or authority of the property owner. If an officer observes someone on private property when the business is closed, or a problem is reported by someone who does not have the authority to sign a trespass complaint, the police department must contact the person who is legally responsible for the property.

You're misunderstanding what that law is stating.

It is not stating that a police officer has to have consent to enter private property, it is stating that a police officer cannot trespass a person off of private property without the owner or an agent of the owners consent. See, here is the key:

“remove individuals or request them to leave without the consent or authority of the property owner” = Trespass..


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



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Are you saying that the cop wasn't there to catch a trespasser? And if so, how would he remove said trespasser without consent?

If not, what was he there for then?

A burgler is still a trespasser. A drug dealer is still trespassing. Anyone on the man's property is a trespasser (including the cop when not informed of his trespass).


According to any further information we have, the complaint was a prowler. As far as I'm aware, the only crime a prowler has committed so far is trespassing. Correct?



[edit on 28-8-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by Nutter
 


A trespasser is someone who is on the property, but not necessarily overtly breaking the law. There is no way for an officer to know if the person as permission of the owner to be on the land or not simply by seeing them there unless it has been specified by the owner. If the person does something to break the law, it is no longer trespassing and the officer can now act on his own authority.

So for example, if the officer is sitting there watching the property and a person is wandering around on it, the officer cannot do anything but watch, unless he has permission from the owner to remove that person. Now if that person pulls out a screwdriver and breaks into a vehicle, the officer has now witnessed them committing a crime and they can intervene.

See in your examples, yes a burglar is a trespasser, but they have also committed burglary. The same is true of a drug dealer, they might be a loiterer, but unless the property owner has told the police to remove them for loitering, they have to witness him actually selling drugs before they can interfere.


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



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


So, you agree with me then? Because in what you have described, it sounds like the cops need permission to be on private land unless they physically see a crime being comitted on said property? What crime did the cop see in this instance that gave him the right to be on the man's property without permission?



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   




reply to post by whatukno
 




Well no dont jump on folks that question this even on its face as cop haters. The reasons you posted above may be why they old guy went out to begin with.

And a 74 year old man? Like that fits almost zero profile of a burgler. If the old guy had mistaken the cop for a butgler and shot him dead would you be as understanding?


 
Mod Edit: Large quote removal, Reply To function used. Please see ABOUT ATS: Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote. Thank you - Jak

[edit on 28/8/10 by JAK]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by Nutter
 

The two main reason that apply here would be that there was a report of ongoing crime in the immediate area, and that he was on the property of a business which would be considered an area that the public can freely travel on. This is the same thing that applies when a police car park in your front yard to run radar on your street and such.

Even the front yard of your house is considered to be open to public travel as salesmen and others use it to travel to your front door. Now if its posted that there is no trespassing, then the officer will most likely go on to the next nearest public location and park there.

Also do not forget that police can enter anywhere they wish if they have probable cause to suspect that a crime had been or is in the process of being committed.

And no, I was not agreeing with you, I was saying that they cannot interfere with another person on your land unless you trespass that person, the officer witnesses a crime, or have probable cause to believe that a crime is taking place. I was not saying they could not enter your land.


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



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
For those of you questioning public use.

BULL#.

No commercial property, be it a church or another format, is open to public use after hours. PERIOD.

The property line of all thoroughfares ends right behind the sidewalk, if there is a sidewalk. If no sidewalk, the line is about 10 feet behind the face of the curb.

No cop is authorized to USE ANY PRIVATE lot to stake out anything without the owner's permission.

Oh, unless you are talking about the NEW Patriot Act laws and the NEW breaking the law ruling by the POS judge where they can GPS your private vehicle without a warrant.

Typical, people making excuses for cops.

Should be found guilty of trespassing, intentional negligent homicide.

If a prosecutor with an ounce of Professionalism, could argue that this could also be considered 2nd degree murder due to the FACT, that the officer had already broken a law, thereby any homicide that was caused due to the initial law being broken, the 2nd degree would be relevant.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Police regularly park on private property that is considered open to public thoroughfare. I see them sitting and talking to each other (cars pulled window to window) in business parking lots all the time, sleeping, filling out their paperwork, running radar. They normally use the parking lot of a business, but I have seen them do it at people homes as well. Heck they set up huge DUI roadblocks, and use grocery stores parking lots, after hours, to line up and hold everyone they flag off the road for a check. Nothing new about this sort of thing happening.

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



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
When I worked as a cop, occasionally we would handle an increase in burglaries or various other crimes by wearing our uniforms or plain clothes clearly marked "Police" and then disseminate out around the problem areas in unmarked cars. We did this so we could remain inconspicuous in an effort to watch the area and, hopefully, catch someone in the act of the crime. That could be what this department was doing, as it mentions there had been an increase in burglaries.

I'd be curious to know at how close a range that this pastor was shot in the chest. Other than that, it's too hard to say right now what really took place because the police aren't going to release anything crucial till they can get all the evidence together. Certainly if the officer's statement shows he was not justified in shooting the pastor, the department is going to keep that info under wraps until they can scramble to figure out how to handle the backlash that will ensue.

I may have missed it, but I didn't remember seeing any mention of any independent witnesses that saw or heard anything, including the number of gunshots fired. There's just not enough known to say whether or not this was justified. We can't assume that just because the guy's a pastor that he acted appropriately.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Three_moons
 




The assumptions by a few regarding no investigation and the cop simply getting away with it are also unfounded for the same reasons.


I don't recall anyone stating that their was no investigation taking place. However when a man is killed on his own property and the only witness is the killer then that killer should stand trial. Just like would happen if that killer was a homeless man, a security guard, or whoever. Equality under the law is one of our most fundamental tenants. To disregard it leaves the rest of us with no rights or freedoms.



I purposely left out the property owners profession, age and gender to not give any bias


We shouldn't bias ourselves with age and occupation right? However you are clearly bias by the killers profession.

If the killers profession was to be left unknown and the story were to read that a pastor was shot by a man sitting in a car on the victims own property with a loaded firearm. Would people not be unanimous in demanding a trial? When a person is gunned down the killer should stand trial. Period.



There's simply not enough information at this point to determine what actions transpired from this point.


Your right which is why we have a trial process. We don't allow an individuals employer to provide immunity. Doing so is to elevate that employer and their employees above the law. I can't imagine anyone that understands the implication of such an elevation would be for such a decision.




[edit on 28-8-2010 by harvib]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Yes, they do use private property, with the owner's consent.

I actually asked about this in my business. I caught one sleeping on duty in a business lot I was managing. Told him if I caught him there again, I would file trespassing charges. In most bigger cities where the business is shutdown at night, all you need is a sign posted of the hours of operation and the city ordinance of the trespass code. I am sure you have seen these. That is lawful posting of no trespass.

They are allowed to go to a location that is private if they SEE criminal activity.

Just because they do something all the time and is SOP for them, does not make it right.

Just like the time I went to my favorite fishing hole way back in the woods, where a county deputy was having a little midnight rendezvous. Made it obvious when I pulled up and got out and wrote down his license number.

One deputy I did not need to worry about getting any tickets from for about a year.

Just because they can, does not mean they should.

Sorry, this incident caused the DEATH of a man that was WITHIN his rights to do what he was doing.

If it was anyone else, they would be getting a MINIMUM charge of negligent homicide. PERIOD.

How does a CERTAIN profession, negate a crime? It does NOT.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by NightGypsy
 




Certainly if the officer's statement shows he was not justified in shooting the pastor, the department is going to keep that info under wraps until they can scramble to figure out how to handle the backlash that will ensue.


This statement illustrates perfectly why there is a huge conflict of interest in allowing an employer to substitute as the trial process. An employer that may receive backlash by releasing information may be conflicted in withholding such information indefinitely.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Defcon. I believe you are incorrect in regards to what constitutes as trespassing. Admittedly, there are differences in what constitutes trespassing on residential property vs. property operating as a business due to the offer to enter that a business creates. And for the sake of argument, lets assume, that it can be reasonably shown that the offer to enter extended to the middle of the night. It still becomes trespassing when a nuisance is created (as determined by the owner) or when dangerous activity is being committed. Causing the owner to awake in the middle of the night (not to mention shooting him) is certainly a nuisance.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


No, we don't know he was conducting a stakeout. We just know he was there at least long enough for the pastor to decide to grab his gun and go have a look. That could be hours, or it could be as little as 10 minutes. We don't know how long he was there before the pastor noticed him, and we don't know that he was conducting a stakeout. Claiming something repeatedly doesn't make it so.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 



W. Scott Creach, 74, approached the police officer who had gone to his business before midnight after police had received a request for increased patrols there earlier in the day, police said.


According to the police, he was there to increase patrols. Patrols=watching. Surveillance=watching. Patrols=Surveillance. Surveillance=Stakeout.



stake·outs Plural

NOUN
1. police surveillance: hidden surveillance of somebody or something, especially by the police
2. place for police surveillance: the place from which surveillance is carried out, especially by the police


www.bing.com...


sur·veil·lance[ sər váylənss ]NOUN
1. close watch: continual observation of a person or group, especially one suspected of doing something illegal


www.bing.com...


pa·trolled past and past participle
pa·trol·ling present participle
pa·trols 3rd person present singular

1. guard place: to guard or protect a place by moving regularly around it and watching it


www.bing.com...



[edit on 28-8-2010 by Nutter]



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join