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: 9
25
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Here is the claim you made:



The person has the obligation and the right to find out why cops are on their property, when they do, the cops have the obligation to tell the person why they are on their property. Your point is pathetic and stupid.

The property owner has a right to protect their property, in that right is also the obligation to find out who they are protecting their property from, if it is the police, it's the property owner's right and obligation to find out themselves that the police are on their property, not the other way around.


As a result you must be aware of laws that exist that I am not aware of. So once again please provide the following:

Show me the law that requires a person to have an obligation to find out why an individual is on their property.

Also show me the law that requires a person to identify that a person is a police officer.

Show me the law that inhibits a person from walking on his property in a lawful manner that requires him to first verify that there are no "police" on his property.

Find me the law that requires a person, in the necessity of protection. must first find out who the person is that they are protecting themselves or there property from.

Find me the law that gives such special rights to an individual due to his affiliations or occupation that his mere presence on private property removes or restricts a persons rights. And compels performance that is not compelled in the case of a person that doesn't have the same affiliations or occupation.




posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 




Also, in order to arrest someone you have to determine that a crime was committed. That requires an investigation. That is what is happening now. If a crime has found to been committed, the officer will be arrested and arraigned on the charges.


Killing someone is a crime. However there may be certain affirmative defenses that may be employed that if successful will result in forgiveness of the crime but it is still a crime. A person has been deprived of life without due process of the law.

If you think it is normal for a person to kill another where the killer is known and is the only surviving witness and not to be brought up on charges then show me one other case that the killer didn't have the privilege of affiliation and is not charged.



I think that the both of you just want to see this cop fry, I think that the both of you have already decided that he is guilty and you don't give a crap about whether or not he has actually committed a crime.


What I want, is for people to care that when "equality under the law" no longer stands as a fundamental tenant then those of us below the law have no rights or freedoms.

"Equality under the law" gives no preferential treatment based on occupation or anything else. So again I ask you, is it normal for someone to be killed on his own property,where the killer is known and is the only surviving witness, and to not be charged? If it is normal, as I don't believe it is, then show me the cases. If it isn't normal, then what we have is preferential treatment and inequality under the law.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   
shoot a round up in the air.
reload another round in chamber.
lower barrel of firearm
depending on what happens next pick one of the two options

Shoot him or start asking questions



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by buddha
 


BS look up "castle doctrine law"
on google.

you do not have to warn anybody of anything.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


If they charge him without evidence, they won't get a conviction. You won't see this cop fry if they don't do an adequate investigation and find out all the facts first. How pissed would you be if they arrested him only to have to let him go on some technicality?

I understand that you want him to go down for this. I understand that you hate cops, that's fine, many people on ATS hate cops just for being cops.

But if they don't do this right, he won't get convicted. It's only been three days, let them gather evidence and figure out the truth before they go after an arrest.

I know, you want them to pull the lever on the electric chair today, but that is not how the criminal justice system works.

And as for someone being on your property, gee, seems to me like it would be common sense to figure out who they are before you go shooting them. But hey, I forgot, this situation is completely devoid of common sense now isn't it?


However, if the possessor is aware of the trespasser, then usually a duty arises to warn the trespasser of dangerous, man-made conditions on the property, such as an electric fence that emits a lethal shock.


www.justia.com...

Sounds to me like they have an obligation to warn the trespasser of a dangerous man made condition of the GUN doesn't it?

And since this was not a trespasser but a cop that had the legal right to be on the property, then the non existent castle doctrine in Washington state doesn't apply. And it's probably a good idea if they find out that the person on their property is a cop before grabbing a gun and going to check it out.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


Washington does not have that law.

en.wikipedia.org...

Sorry.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 

It's interesting that out of 7 paragraphs, a few lengthy ones, you only chose you to respond to one of them and didn't answer any other questions.


In regards to that paragraph, in my opinion there are differences while a cop is on duty compared to a civilian but they are not above the law. On duty, they are granted powers and responsibilities that you and I don't have as civilians; off duty they are civilians. While on duty they aren't held above the law, but by different laws that apply to them and their scope of work.

As a comparison, and admittingly not the best one, a surgeon can cause a person to die, or kill a person, during an operation without being arrested. There will be an investigation of procedures at the hospital, and possibly an independent one by family, to determine if it was intentional or wrongful. To my knowledge, a doctor isn't arrested immediately when a person dies, even if in a questionable way. After an investigation, if the death is deemed to be wrongful or illegal he will then be arrested and have a trial. Like I said, I realize it's not an exact analogy but the scope of a surgeons' work causes the law to be applied to him in a slightly different way.

Why does a civilian go to jail after killing a person? They remain in custody until their arraignment at which time either bail is set or they are released on their own recognizance until trial.

What is the purpose of bail?

First, the true purpose of bail [is] to make sure the defendant shows up for Court. It is particularly important where the defendant is perceived as a flight risk
source

What is releasing one on their own recognizance based on?

It is granted based on the past history of the defendant, roots in the community, regular employment, the recommendation of the prosecutor, the type of crime, and the overall likelihood of making all appearances in court and the improbability that the defendant will commit another crime while awaiting trial.
source

This is my interpretation based on the above and general knowledge. A civilian, Joe Citizen, who the legal system is unfamiliar with needs something to entice him to return to court. Much like Joe Citizen can be released on his own recognizance, Joe Officer is released on his own recognizance by default.

Joe Officer is already known amongst the legal system so there is probably no perceived reason to go through the precedings. Both Joe's have to go to trial and can be convicted or acquitted of their crime. Joe Citizen could be released on his own recognizance and skip trial just like Joe Officer can. I don't know the answer and am speculating with a few pieces of information. By no means am I saying that this is fact.

You're probably right Nutter, we probably have to agree to disagree.


Edit for spelling

[edit on 8/30/2010 by Three_moons]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 

Additional information will definitely be appreciated from the SVPD. According to what they said the interview with the officer should have already taken place although they also said information wouldn't be released until Thursday, I believe. Looking forward to any releases from them to help sort this out among ourselves.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


how they going to do that if you prohibit them from any actions but calling the law.

Sorry sir we do not have a police officer there.

News Flash,
Washington State DOES have a castle doctrine law
Castle Doctrine Map Update for January 2009
January 24, 2009 by tekel

I realize the insanity of trusting Wikipedia for any kind of exhaustive legal analysis. But they’ve got a great list, and the list (for the most part) links to the relevant statutes. If I was really going to be serious about this I’d take the time to look up state murder law for all 50 states on Westlaw and verify that the states listed have some version of a justifiable homicide excuse for people in their own homes. But for now, Wikipedia will have to do.

Here is the updated list of the states which have adopted some form of Castle Doctrine law, as of June 21 2008.

Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming


tekel.wordpress.com...



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


I didn't say they didn't have a justified homicide law.

I said they don't have the castle doctrine.

Learn the difference or don't waste my time.

apps.leg.wa.gov...



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 




If they charge him without evidence, they won't get a conviction.


Do they not know who the killer is. And if this is normal as you imply then you should be able to show me another case that an individual without privilege of affiliation has been the known killer and not been charged. I have challenged you to provide this numerous times and you have failed to do so.



I understand that you want him to go down for this. I understand that you hate cops, that's fine, many people on ATS hate cops just for being cops.


My friend you need to use your logic and reason and not resort to preprogrammed rhetoric. I do not hate cops nor am I interested in seeing anyone "fry". I want equality under the law. As I have stated and indicated repeatedly.



And as for someone being on your property, gee, seems to me like it would be common sense to figure out who they are before you go shooting them. But hey, I forgot, this situation is completely devoid of common sense now isn't it?


Are you under the impression the property owner shot his killer? What are you talking about here???



And since this was not a trespasser but a cop that had the legal right to be on the property,


The evidence is very strong that he was trespassing based on the fact that the victim arose out of bed and proceeded outside to investigate the nuisance. Creating a nuisance in the eyes of a property owner is always a trespass of property.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 




Do they not know who the killer is. And if this is normal as you imply then you should be able to show me another case that an individual without privilege of affiliation has been the known killer and not been charged. I have challenged you to provide this numerous times and you have failed to do so.


At this point they don't know what happened. If they charge him with murder and it turns out that it was self defense or something else they will have to let him go.

I get it, you just want to argue. Whatever, never mind. Don't worry bout it, no matter what I put up your just going to ignore it and go onto something else.

Read this

It would appear that you want a harsher treatment of a cop because he is a cop, now how is that fair? What good would it do to try someone if the prosecution doesn't have enough evidence?


[edit on 8/30/2010 by whatukno]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 




If they charge him with murder and it turns out that it was self defense or something else they will have to let him go.


What I keep trying to explain, is that is not how it works. The claim of self defense is an affirmative defense that is presented by the defense during the trial process. I have never heard of a case where a killer was the only surviving witness and was not charged because he stated self defense.

Now maybe there is video evidence that makes what happen abundantly clear. Maybe the property owner came out shooting. However I didn't join this conversation to debate whether or not this individual was going to stand trial. I joined because I was offended that individuals were automatically blaming the man that lost his life simply because of the killers occupation. I was also offended that individuals assumed that unless the killer was charged then that was evidence that there was no wrong doing. I believe those lines of thinking are dangerous to a free society.



It would appear that you want a harsher treatment of a cop because he is a cop, now how is that fair? What good would it do to try someone if the prosecution doesn't have enough evidence?


I have stated over and over that I want the same treatment. And if the killer has admitted to the killing then that is generally all that is needed to issue charges.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Deputy named in last week's shooting

No new information besides his name being released but figured I'd update the thread.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
About Deputy Brian Hirzel


Hirzel worked 13 years as a law enforcement officer in Cathedral City, Calif., near Palm Springs, and three years as a deputy for Kootenai County. He was hired in 2008 by the Spokane County Sheriff’s Office, which has a contract to provide deputies to serve as police officers for Spokane Valley. [Sheriff] Knezovich said Monday he doesn’t know of any disciplinary sanctions levied against Hirzel since he’s worked for his office.


“This isn’t a friendly interview he is .ing for. This is a criminal investigation,” Knezovich said. “After that, there will be an administrative review,” which will determine whether any disciplinary measures are warranted.
source


Shooting investigation delayed while Hirzel takes a vacation

Spokane County Sheriff officials say they could have placed Hirzel on paid administrative leave and ordered him to remain in the area but that would have required Spokane County to cover the costs of his non-refundable plane tickets and other travel arrangements.


There's some background information on him, take it for what it's worth to you. I specifically included the criminal investigation part since there was some discussion whether or not there was one. Regarding the vacation, I'm not sure how I feel about that. Previously I talked about flight risk and such and it's doubtful a civilian would've been able to fly somewhere under similar circumstances. The fact that they're discussing having to cover expenses if they placed him on administrative leave has the appearance of an excuse instead of the truth. Originally it was mentioned that there was a 48 hour period until talking to the cop according to protocol. The family has a right for the investigation to begin as quickly as possible and the police have a right to deliver that. It's questionable to me how a vacation, even one that's planned and nonrefundable, is given priority over a criminal investigation.



Knezovich also addressed questions about whether Hirzel spoke with Creach prior to the contact or whether the Sheriff’s Office has a policy about contacting business owners prior to parking in their private lots.

“It’s never come up before,” he said. “I don’t know how many thousands of businesses we check. We drive through their parking lots and sometimes we get out of the cars to check to see if doors are locked.”

Parking in private lots is not only accepted, it’s encouraged, he said.

“We might park there to eat lunch or to write reports. It makes us highly visible, which deters crime,” Knezovich said.
source


This should make for an interesting conversation. At least we now know their policy about patrolling and parking on private property. I still hold my opinions regarding the different issues of a house being on the same property as a business in contrast to a business being the sole building on a property. Maybe it's the different places and circumstances we reside in but I don't think many near me would mind the police checking up on their businesses.

It's interesting that the issue has never come up before and implies to me that people in that area don't see police on a business property as a problem but rather something that's welcomed. I'm still holding my judgment specifically as there's still not information available such as which parking lot the unmarked car was in or if the house I presume is truly theirs along with other unknown factors. Of course the "highly visible, which deters crime" part is curiously worded since we're referring to an unmarked car at night.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   
About Wayne Scott Creach & his family


Spokane Valley pastor Wayne Scott Creach and his wife had a prearranged system for when the business owner encountered trespassers on the couple’s sprawling nursery and greenhouse complex in Spokane Valley. He’d go outside and shout if there was a problem, at which point she was to call 911, Creach’s son, Alan Creach, said in an interview Tuesday.

Imogene Creach followed that script Aug. 25, calling 911 when she heard what she thought were three shots fired. Alan Creach said his mother could see other patrol cars arriving before she hung up the phone.


He [Alan Creach] said his father apparently noticed the car, put on his pants and slippers, grabbed his .45-caliber pistol and went outside to investigate what he thought was a prowler, Alan Creach said.

“He didn’t take the time to put on his shirt,” Creach said. “My mom heard him leave the bedroom. He thought enough to take his gun, but not enough to get her out of bed.”

Creach said he also learned from detectives that his father’s .45-caliber pistol did not have a round in the chamber, meaning he could not have immediately fired the weapon. He said his father had three or four instances a year where he would hear something going on in his nursery.
source


There's a slight discrepancy as to how well the script was followed as it states he didn't get his wife out of bed and she didn't call 911 until she heard shots instead of when he shouted, as the script described a usual encounter. I'm unsure what if anything that changes but simply making an observation. The article also mentions that the number of shots heard fired were dependent upon the location of the witnesses, suggesting that the ones that heard 3 shots heard an echo of the one shot that appears to be confirmed as the only one fired.

This should answer any questions as to whether or not he actually armed himself on the night in question. The fact that his pistol didn't have a round in the chamber could lead to some speculation at least a few ways. The earlier articles led me to believe that he was out on his property more often than only 3 or 4 times a year. I'm not sure what if anything that changes but just making another observation.


Here are all the links. There's a lot of new information here although nothing clearly evident in my opinion. I suggest you read the full articles, especially the first one.

Son offers insight into pastor’s fatal encounter

Shooting investigation delayed while Hirzel takes a vacation

Sheriff says interview with deputy won’t be “friendly”



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Whatever!!! The cop could have been taking a leak. I know alot of property owners who just wait for the opportunity to confront a tresspasser with thier 'by god' second amendment rights. They represent an oppressive, possessive personality that really has no place in civilized society.
"Sign sign everywhere a sign"

The guy probably went out talkin tough waving a gun and got double tapped...end of story. As a property owner if you think you have the right to challenge tresspassers at gunpoint then you need a lead sandwich, and you have no place in a FREE country such as the USA.


And to the people saying "Baptist preachers are usually peaceful", what a load of crap! The most hateful , bigoted, gender biased, homophobes Ive ever met were "men of the cloth".

Lets be real people.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by psyko45
 

With all due respect, I'd usually agree with you and your statement about "alot of property owners who just wait for the opportunity to confront a tresspasser with thier 'by god' second amendment rights". But this story doesn't seem to be about that. I fully agree that you can't judge anyone by their title, job, religion, race or otherwise and I've even brought that information to light saying the same as you in previous posts. I've even gone so far as to pull the descriptors of pastor and elderly out of the equation for exactly that purpose. The information available seems to still tell me that a unfortunate understanding took place with 2 parties each misidentifying each other at night and in the dark, among other circumstances. Out of curiosity, did you read through some or all of this thread or just base your opinion on a few posts?



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Three_moons
 


I skimmed until everything started becoming the same old crap. Ill go back and read more carefully. Its just that at the most the property owner should have used a vehicle to scan the situation and if he absolutely had to approach(which he did not) he should have done so by offering assistance and manners. Example: From a distance : "Hey, is everything alright sir or mam?" Anyway Ill read it more carefully and comment later, as well as apologize if Ive misjudged.

It just doesnt seem like the property owner used a bit of common sense.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   
Cops have tried to park on My property to get an unseen look at drivers. When I see them I always tell them not to park on My property.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join