Political Profiling of a "Constitutionalist" Turns Simple Domestic Call Into SWAT Raid

page: 2
49
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


They said they had issues with them before, he prob has excessive political ideals and the locals knew about it.. I dont think it simply because he a "constitutionalst"




posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
It has become about revenue and many of the officers are threatened daily to bring it in or loss their job, some get suspended without pay for three days if they don’t comply with the higher ups, which are the real problem not the LEO on the street.

I have many friends and family on the force, most with many years do a thankless job for the right reasons and most deserve our respect, like with any thing there are always a few bad apples in the mix, but I tell you now 80 percent are on our side.

Many I know have not even written a single ticket in almost a year because they refuse to play the governments game, only because of their time on the force have they not been removed from position.

Just keep that in mind and give them the benefit of the doubt as each person and case is different and there are a lot of good guys still out there.

Thank You.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
This is it!!
!984 is here, we're all living it, unfortunately the majority havent yet realised it.

Its going to get worse, a LOT worse.

I'm in the UK and a couple of weeks ago a leaflet was posted through my door. It was from the residents association advising us to report any unusual behaviour. The very next sentence told us they had secured funding to provide all members with a T-shirt.
Does that sound fammiliar to you?? I'll give you a clue - Nazi's



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Yup, my adoptive state of Idaho again making me proud.


As I always note in these threads: Idaho justice is about as bass-ackwards as they come. The cop's uncle is the judge and the brother in law is the prosecutor. And they all go to church together.

There really are some serious rights violations here in Idaho that happen daily. Cops act with impunity, doing what they want (just like this video). Generally I see the LE here as infected with "Navy Seal-itis." I swear they pop a boner every time they get to draw their weapon.

So the suspect gets trampled by the over-stimulated cops, then too often the judges ignore the person's rights when they finally do get their day. On top of that the prosecutor makes a freakin' game out of levying every possible charge known to God against the suspect. Most folks out here are too damn poor to mount any kind of competent defense, and the system knows it.

I'm surprised they didn't charge the poor bastard with possession of bomb making materials. Didja see all those sacks of fertilizer or whatever outside against the wall?



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 01:57 AM
link   
This video raises the questions. Why was this officer filming? Why was the film released? What's the agenda behind filming this? Obviously he released it himself or someone in the department released it. Probably thought he would be a smart guy and get some kicks out of posting an anonymous video on the net to get people upset. They should be upset! I hate to break the news to you Mr. Anonymous officer with a AR15, but you filmed your own face in the mirror in the video before you went down the steps to the first floor.
haha

Now watch how fast the video gets deleted shall we?



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
This chills me to the core. with every right trampled, every act of aggression against the people that goes unchecked, they get more and more bold in their assertion that they can do what ever they want.
How many more labels are we going to give people that disagree with the government in order to make them the next "other" ?



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
If I wasn't "anti-law enforcement" before this video, I certainly am now.

Good job coppers.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
This common in domestic violence cases. I didn't see any "SWAT team" kicking in doors and arresting people. I saw a few officers responding to a call of possible domestic violence, at a house with people that are known to be anti-law enforcement (known to be armed). The police were just a bit cautious, because they've dealt with this guy before. The cops weren't even yelling or being iverly aggressive, just detained them for a little while while they conducted an investigation. Were they arrested?

The police have an obligation to go to the home, and check to make sure that no one is in serious need of assistance. They have the right to do a protective sweep of the home, and to look for any victims that may be unable to call out for help. If the cops find something in "plain site" during this time, it can be seized (without a warrant) as evidence.


"There are four main circumstances in which a warrant is not required for police to search your house:

1. Consent. If the person who is in control of the property consents to the search without being coerced or tricked into doing so, a search without a warrant is valid. Note that police do not have to tell you that you have the right to refuse a search, but you do. Also, note that if you have a roommate, he or she can consent to a search of the common areas of your dwelling (kitchen, living room), but not to your private areas (bedroom, for instance). On the other hand, the Supreme Court recently ruled that one spouse cannot consent to the search of a house on behalf of the other.

2. Plain View. If a police officer already has the right to be on your property and sees contraband or evidence of a crime that is clearly visible, that object may be lawfully seized and used as evidence. For example, if the police are in your house on a domestic violence call and see marijuana plants on the windowsill, the plants can be seized as evidence.

3. Search Incident to Arrest. If you are being arrested in your house, police officers may search for weapons or other accomplices to protect their safety (known as a "protective sweep"), or they may otherwise search to prevent the destruction of evidence.

4. Exigent Circumstances. This exception refers to emergency situations where the process of getting a valid search warrant could compromise public safety or could lead to a loss of evidence. This encompasses instances of "hot pursuit" in which a suspect is about to escape. A recent California Supreme Court decision ruled that police may enter a DUI suspect's home without a warrant on the basis of the theory that important evidence, namely the suspect's blood alcohol level, may be lost otherwise. "

www.legalzoom.com...



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
If the police knew who he was and had dealings with him in the past. Which they have because the neighbors have called the cops on them before then they also know there are only two people who live at the home. When the drug both of them out the door and slaped them in cuffs they had no need to enter the home and "sweep" it.
The old cannard of "officer safety" is used to violate the rights of individuals to be secure in their home and possessions.
These officers did not even conduct a proper sweep of the home. They were simply looking for what ever they could see that would give them a charge to seize the home. Police have no extra legal rights to "feel safe". If the only requirement to violating inherent rights were simply officer safety then there is no limit to officer power if they can simply say "I felt unsafe". If you are an officer and you dont feel safe then get another job! Do you think the crab boat guys feel safe everytime they go out on the water? They have a much higher fatility rate then police.

The proper response would have been for them to calmly walk to the door and knock. When someone came to the door simply ask them to step outside and answer a few questions.

'scues me ma'am we got a report of yelling and fighting going on at this location is everything okay.
Yes officer we are fine there is no fighting going on here. Our neighbor likes to make trouble for us.
Okay ma'am you dont seem to look like you have been hurt so have a nice day.

If Bear had come to the door first they could have asked him to step outside and asked him the same questions then had his wife come out and make sure she was okay. I dont think this couple would have had a problem with this if it had been handled in that manner.

I dont have any issue with officers responding and asking questions to confirm or exclude a report. Its the nature of this response and the automatic classification of this couple as being "constitutionalists" and thus armed and dangerous that is the major malfunction here.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dragoon01

The proper response would have been for them to calmly walk to the door and knock. When someone came to the door simply ask them to step outside and answer a few questions.

'scues me ma'am we got a report of yelling and fighting going on at this location is everything okay.
Yes officer we are fine there is no fighting going on here. Our neighbor likes to make trouble for us.
Okay ma'am you dont seem to look like you have been hurt so have a nice day.

If Bear had come to the door first they could have asked him to step outside and asked him the same questions then had his wife come out and make sure she was okay. I dont think this couple would have had a problem with this if it had been handled in that manner.



Ummm, that's what they did. They saw the woman open the door, then asked her to step out and answer some questions. Then, from outside, they asked the dude to come outside. They asked if they were fighting, and they said they had an argument earlier. They do a little investigating, and (from what I can tell) release everyone...



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Libertarians take note...

Don't think for a second your not next



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryAlien
Ummm, that's what they did. They saw the woman open the door, then asked her to step out and answer some questions. Then, from outside, they asked the dude to come outside. They asked if they were fighting, and they said they had an argument earlier. They do a little investigating, and (from what I can tell) release everyone...


No that is not exactly what they did.

When was the last time you were handcuffed and had people walk through your home with assault rifles over a verbal argument?

Verbal arguments are not an illegal act. Had there been an accusation of a physical confrontation, then yes. It would then fall under the domestic violence laws. Verbal confrontation is not illegal, you can not be handcuffed for it, and no one searches your home and holds you at gun point over it. If this was the case, there would many politicians handcuffed, held at gun point and investigated for doing their jobs.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Wow Angryalien, you dont even have a clue. Good luck in your fema concentration camp reatard. Because thats where you law enforcement obiding citizens will be when # hits the fan buddy. There is no law but the constitution in this country, and every thing you cited as a supposed law is a damned lie and a violation to the constitution.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


A farming family in Letha, Idaho recently had their house raided and were assaulted by police after a neighbor called the police when overhearing a verbal argument between the husband and wife who owned the house. In any other situation they would have had a simple knock on their door and the police would check in to make sure that no one was being hurt.

Here's the problem with some of these “patriot” type news sources, they twist things to fit their agenda. Whoever wrote this has no idea what they are talking about, or is intentionally making these people sound innocent.

The reality is, that Domestic Violence Calls are historically the most dangerous calls that police have to answer. They are a BIG DEAL, and you better do as instructed when they arrive, or they can/will escalate it quickly. Officers that I personally know have straight out told me that when they go to a Domestic, one of the two parties is going to jail that night (at the very least having to leave the premises) 100% of the time.

They will NOT take your word as to whether or not “someone is being hurt”, as traditionally abusive people will force their (often co-dependent) victim into telling the police that nothing is happening. They will sometimes even have the person snowed to the point that they actually believe its their fault and not the abusive persons.


Originally posted by jude11
entering private property without a warrant

If an officer has “probable cause” to believe that a crime is being committed, they may enter any place they deem necessary without a warrant. The witnessed events reported by the neighbor are enough to establish cause in certain situations.


Originally posted by jude11
detained without any other reason than the label of "Constitutionalist"

No, he's being detained because he was involved in a domestic dispute, it has nothing to do with him being a “constitutionalist”.


Are you familiar with these guys?” asked a deputy identified in the 911 recordings as “Officer 57.” “Negative,” answered another deputy designated “Officer 56.” “I am, and it’s affirmative, there is [sic] weapons,” continued Officer 57. “He is – or at least was – anti-law enforcement. We’ve had issues with him. He’s a Constitutionalist.”

As bad as that may sound, its very important information for the officers. As I said above, Domestic Violence Calls have historically been the deadliest calls that officers answer. In this instance they need to know that:

1)They are armed.
2)they historically have a problem with obeying law enforcement officers.

This increases the chances of the call going bad, and means the officer have to take additional precautions with this situation. The fact that they are “constitutionalists” is just added info that is being stated in support of the more important facts. Its not the reason why they are arrested or detained.


Originally posted by jude11
Even in the vid you can clearly hear the officer asking if they were having a little fight...while handcuffing the husband on the ground. When did a marital spat become reason to be treated as a criminal?

About the same time that Domestic Violence and spousal abuse became crimes.


Originally posted by jude11
Yes folks, it seems to be getting worse and the label of "Constitutionalist" is enough to have you treated as a criminal.

No, but beating your spouse sure will though...
Add to that, having a history of causing the police problems, and this will make them treat you as a bigger threat then they would otherwise.

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



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 



Ok, so you have friends on the force. I get that. That in itself can be the basis of a biased opinion when it comes to threads like these.



The witnessed events reported by the neighbor are enough to establish cause in certain situations.

There was no witness to an event. They "Heard" yelling. No hitting, no gun shots, crying etc. Yelling.



The fact that they are “constitutionalists” is just added info that is being stated in support of the more important facts. Its not the reason why they are arrested or detained.

The more important facts? Being labelled a constitutionalist seems to be ok with you. Your choice. But it's not ok with millions more. Since when did that word become cause to fear for your life?

This is the entire point of the article that you seem to have missed. Who labelled them and what gives them the right to do so. Under whose rules and guidance. This is what the thread is about.
It's the reason they were both dragged from their private house with force before determining anything else.

You keep going back to spousal abuse on every point but there was no witness only something overheard. Doesn't that concern you?

The officers entered the house AFTER the only 2 occupants were dragged out by force. They went on their merry way through the entire house without a warrant.

And this doesn't raise alarms for you? This is ok? Sorry, not for me and many others.

One more point as well.

With this argument, a cop can come to your door at anytime and drag you and your wife outside to conduct a search of your private property because we all know that if you asked who made the complaint the answer is always "Sorry but we are not at liberty to divulge that information".

Convenient.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryAlien
Ummm, that's what they did. They saw the woman open the door, then asked her to step out and answer some questions. Then, from outside, they asked the dude to come outside. They asked if they were fighting, and they said they had an argument earlier. They do a little investigating, and (from what I can tell) release everyone...


A couple points: I didn't see the same video you did, apparently. The police ORDERED the woman out of the house, and when she refused...while standing in her own home, the officer forcibly pulled her from her home.

So I am a little fuzzy on the law in this case, but if both suspect and victim are detained outside of the house, what is the lawful reason for the police to enter and search the residence? The only evidence of any potential crime at this point is a phone call stating that the two had a heated argument.

As for the guns...maybe you don't understand the US West, but everyone has a weapon in their house, usually several. I have 3 working and one antique, and I only shoot em a couple times a year. It's a cultural thing going back to indian raids and hunting to survive. Hell, lots of folks still hunt to supplement their food budget.

Combine that with Idaho's broadly conservative, constitutionally minded population and according to your logic, every residential call in Idaho would legally allow a warrantless search?

Chilling...



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by jude11
Ok, so you have friends on the force. I get that. That in itself can be the basis of a biased opinion when it comes to threads like these.

I'm not biased at all. As a matter of fact I call out officers on here all the time when they are in the wrong. In this case, they were not in the wrong in any way that I can see. Its often the criminal who cries victim when they think they can get public favor on their side against the unpopular police. That is exactly what I see going on in this case, and its being reported by an “activist” website.


Originally posted by jude11
There was no witness to an event. They "Heard" yelling. No hitting, no gun shots, crying etc. Yelling.

Have you read the police report?
Have you heard the 911 call to the police?

You have no idea what was reported, and the police obviously had enough information on what was happening to meet the criteria for “probable cause”. You also have no idea what the first arriving officer witnessed when he arrived on scene. You don't know if the officer witnessed anything while approaching the house, before they were aware that he was present.

When the police arrive at the scene of domestic violence, they ALWAYS search the house for any weapons, this is SOP and actually part of the law in many states. On entering the residence, anything else that is suspicious, and in “plain sight” is now legally within their rights to investigate. That includes his “growing facility”.

If you don't like these laws, then lobby against them. Good luck with it though, because they were lobbied in by very powerful anti-abuse lobbyists.

BTW... Just to let you know how much weight that a witness's testimony can have. If someone were to report that they thought you had a gun, and were threatening them with it, that by itself is a felony. It could have been a candybar, but if the witness states that he believed it was a weapon, that's brandishing, and in many states, you go to jail.


Originally posted by jude11
The more important facts? Being labelled a constitutionalist seems to be ok with you.

The officer is offering that in support of the fact that they are armed and hostile toward police.
Sorry if your “Constitutionalist groups” have gotten themselves a bad reputation for thinking they are above the laws, and for giving cops a hard time.... Maybe that's because 99% they don't know the REAL law as well as they THINK they do. Almost everything that comes from Conspiracy law is all BS in the real legal system.


Originally posted by jude11
This is the entire point of the article that you seem to have missed. Who labelled them and what gives them the right to do so.

The police have that same damn first amendment right to form an opinion, that you do...
Funny, you should know that as an expert on the Constitution.


Originally posted by jude11
It's the reason they were both dragged from their private house with force before determining anything else.

Nope, they were dragged out of their house because they had a domestic violence call.
When you go to a DV call, the police are going to remove the man from the house, talk to the woman privately, check the house for weapons or anyone else in danger, and if anything is in “plain sight”, they have the right to further investigate that as well. If both parties appear to have been involved in a fight, then they may very well arrest them BOTH.


Originally posted by jude11
You keep going back to spousal abuse on every point but there was no witness only something overheard. Doesn't that concern you?

Doesn't matter, now there are also laws against both verbal and mental abuse, as well as physical.


Originally posted by jude11
The officers entered the house AFTER the only 2 occupants were dragged out by force. They went on their merry way through the entire house without a warrant.

Perfectly legal...
Learn the law.


Originally posted by jude11
With this argument, a cop can come to your door at anytime and drag you and your wife outside to conduct a search of your private property because we all know that if you asked who made the complaint the answer is always "Sorry but we are not at liberty to divulge that information".

Convenient.

They can also seize your weapons in many states...
Go read, educate yourself:
www.state.nj.us...

III. Discretionary Arrest. A police officer may arrest a person or may sign a criminal complaint against that person, or may do both, where there is probable cause to believe that an act of domestic violence has been committed but none of the conditions in Section II. above applies.

IV. Seizure of Weapons.
A. Seizure of a Weapon for Safekeeping.
A. A police officer who has probable cause to believe that an act of domestic violence has been committed may:
A. Question all persons present to determine whether there are weapons, as defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:39- 1r, on the premises.
B. If an officer sees or learns that a weapon is present within the premises of a domestic violence incident and reasonably believes that the weapon would expose the victim to a risk of serious bodily injury, the officer should attempt to gain possession of the weapon.
C. If the weapon is in plain view, the officer should seize the weapon.
D. If the weapon is not in plain view but is located within the premises jointly possessed by both the domestic violence assailant and the domestic violence victim, the officer should obtain the consent, preferably in writing, of the domestic violence victim to search for and to seize the weapon.
E. If the weapon is not located within the premises jointly possessed by the domestic violence victim and assailant but is located upon other premises, the officer should attempt to obtain possession of the weapon from the possessor of the weapon, either the domestic violence assailant or a third party, by a voluntary surrender of the weapon.
F. If the domestic violence assailant or the possessor of the weapon refuses to surrender the weapon or to allow the officer to enter the premises to search for the named weapon, the officer should obtain a Domestic Violence Warrant for the Search and Seizure of Weapons. [See Appendix 13]


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
edit on 10/13/2012 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by becomingaware
Thats messed up. ...They found a "grow room" when they got to the upper level of the house. You can hear him say "ahh, growing in there, did you smell it when we came in?" Also talking about the ventilation system used in the grow op. "well have to get a warrant for that" he said.

So they entered the home for something else but while there they found a grow room for our "beloved plant".

At least he has time to get rid of it before they came back. Also yes, at least they didnt shoot the dogs.


Yes I do love my tomatoes too. They're healthy and did you know that they are actually fruit and not vegetable? He didn't have time to get rid of any of them thought.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Well, after reading both your responses and arguments...

We are clearly on opposite sides of what freedom means.

I'll stick with my support of the people and their CONSTITUTIONAL rights and you can support whatever police state agenda you desire.

Because i am very well aware that if I give people like you an inch...you'll take everything.

Peace

edit on 13-10-2012 by jude11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Here's more:
www.legalzoom.com...

There are four main circumstances in which a warrant is not required for police to search your house:
1. Consent. If the person who is in control of the property consents to the search without being coerced or tricked into doing so, a search without a warrant is valid. Note that police do not have to tell you that you have the right to refuse a search, but you do. Also, note that if you have a roommate, he or she can consent to a search of the common areas of your dwelling (kitchen, living room), but not to your private areas (bedroom, for instance). On the other hand, the Supreme Court recently ruled that one spouse cannot consent to the search of a house on behalf of the other.
2. Plain View. If a police officer already has the right to be on your property and sees contraband or evidence of a crime that is clearly visible, that object may be lawfully seized and used as evidence. For example, if the police are in your house on a domestic violence call and see marijuana plants on the windowsill, the plants can be seized as evidence.
3. Search Incident to Arrest. If you are being arrested in your house, police officers may search for weapons or other accomplices to protect their safety (known as a "protective sweep"), or they may otherwise search to prevent the destruction of evidence.
4. Exigent Circumstances. This exception refers to emergency situations where the process of getting a valid search warrant could compromise public safety or could lead to a loss of evidence. This encompasses instances of "hot pursuit" in which a suspect is about to escape. A recent California Supreme Court decision ruled that police may enter a DUI suspect's home without a warrant on the basis of the theory that important evidence, namely the suspect's blood alcohol level, may be lost otherwise.





top topics
 
49
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join