Another police/rights video

[jimnyc]

I saw this video posted within a mess of a thread in the lounge. I think it's better with it's own thread. I'll say straight off, I have no issue with their actions. "IF" I hear right in the beginning, it sounds like they are out there on a possible domestic violence call. The couple in question could have easily walked out their front door, spoke to the police, and put it to rest. OR, they could whip out a camera and videotape, and refuse to cooperate. If they are called in on a domestic, they aren't going to assume that every party is OK just because someone on the other side of the glass says so, their job is to make sure.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PaGAy5XEv-o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[revelarts]

I saw this video posted within a mess of a thread in the lounge. I think it's better with it's own thread. I'll say straight off, I have no issue with their actions. "IF" I hear right in the beginning, it sounds like they are out there on a possible domestic violence call. The couple in question could have easily walked out their front door, spoke to the police, and put it to rest. OR, they could whip out a camera and videotape, and refuse to cooperate. If they are called in on a domestic, they aren't going to assume that every party is OK just because someone on the other side of the glass says so, their job is to make sure.

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PaGAy5XEv-o" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

Jim
i'm think i'm really done debating this kinda stuff.
I don't see how you can say they they are there to protect... the woman(?) when they walk in and TAZE HER.
is that protection?
did they miss the guy or something.
if you and justify this there's nothing to say.
"whipping out a camera" OMG they whipped out a camera!
Were they protecting the GUY?


preemptive policing, shoot 1st ask questions later.

enjoy your police folks.

[jimnyc]

Jim
i'm think i'm really done debating this kinda stuff.
I don't see how you can say they they are there to protect... the woman(?) when they walk in and TAZE HER.
is that protection?
did they miss the guy or something.
if you and justify this there's nothing to say.
"whipping out a camera" OMG they whipped out a camera!
Were they protecting the GUY?


preemptive policing, shoot 1st ask questions later.

enjoy your police folks.

Someone called in a domestic issue. They HAVE to ensure the safety of all parties before they can leave, or they're supposed to. These people stood at the window instead of cooperating. I understand they "claim" there was no issue, but simply walking out front and SPEAKING to them likely would have resolved the issue. Their very own actions made the situation worse than it needed to be. I know they told people to get down and stand back and all that crap, but these people refused to. I can't say if a taser was necessary as I can only see what the police were doing, not the wife or husband. But when they were out front, while keeping their hands near their guns, they seemed to be acting routine and only wanting to ensure all was cool. The officer even calmly asked why they wouldn't come out the door, and you heard the other one explain they were there on a domestic call. I know you think they should take the word of total strangers, but when a cop is called to an emergency situation, they don't know what is going on. For all they know these people were being uncooperative because they had a gun. Who knows. But the police DO have the right to ensure the safety of a home where a domestic violence situation could be going on. I don't think taking the word of someone through the window is the way to go, only to find out later that someone was killed because the police weren't thorough on the job. I believe Abbey pointed out elsewhere - in Cleveland, the police were called to the house where the 3 girls were kidnapped. They didn't check the situation out fully, obviously. These girls endured several more years of abuse and rape. Was it a result of the police not being thorough? I don't know that either, but I DO know that had they looked into it further WITH a search, a lot of abuse could have been avoided. Instead, they took the word of the abuser.

[jimnyc]

Another example. It appears in this instance, a neighbor called the police. What if an alarm system calls? What if my alarm goes off, and then the police show up, and I open my front door but not the storm door. I explain to them that it went off accidentally, but I have since spoken to ADT and verified who I was and that all was fine in the house. Should it be left there and the police leave?

It happened to me, they kept the guns drawn, about 5 or 6 of them, and demanded I come out and show them ID. 2 of them went around the back. They came in after I showed them ID and did a quick search to ensure all was OK. Of course they didn't taze me in that instance, but I also cooperated with them, especially knowing they were "called" there and were just doing their jobs.

[Missileman]

Another example. It appears in this instance, a neighbor called the police. What if an alarm system calls? What if my alarm goes off, and then the police show up, and I open my front door but not the storm door. I explain to them that it went off accidentally, but I have since spoken to ADT and verified who I was and that all was fine in the house. Should it be left there and the police leave?

It happened to me, they kept the guns drawn, about 5 or 6 of them, and demanded I come out and show them ID. 2 of them went around the back. They came in after I showed them ID and did a quick search to ensure all was OK. Of course they didn't taze me in that instance, but I also cooperated with them, especially knowing they were "called" there and were just doing their jobs.

And what is in place to prevent cops from using "we got a call there was a domestic dispute" to perform warrantless searches of any and every house they want? IMO, when cops arrived, if there wasn't any evidence of a domestic dispute having occurred or in progress, and after talking with the residents who told them there's nothing wrong, they should have left. Hell, the cops could place the 911 call themselves if they wanted to target a particular house.

[jimnyc]

And what is in place to prevent cops from using "we got a call there was a domestic dispute" to perform warrantless searches of any and every house they want? IMO, when cops arrived, if there wasn't any evidence of a domestic dispute having occurred or in progress, and after talking with the residents who told them there's nothing wrong, they should have left. Hell, the cops could place the 911 call themselves if they wanted to target a particular house.

If the call was fictional, the occupants need only file a complaint lawsuit. They keep records of every 9/11 call and transmission back to the officers via their radios.

But by your logic, we shouldn't even let cops in if they respond to a shooting, or someone saw a murder take place in the window - as the occupant need only tell them nothing is wrong, no?

[revelarts]

Someone called in a domestic issue. They HAVE to ensure the safety of all parties before they can leave, or they're supposed to. These people stood at the window instead of cooperating. I understand they "claim" there was no issue, but simply walking out front and SPEAKING to them likely would have resolved the issue. Their very own actions made the situation worse than it needed to be. I know they told people to get down and stand back and all that crap, but these people refused to. I can't say if a taser was necessary as I can only see what the police were doing, not the wife or husband. But when they were out front, while keeping their hands near their guns, they seemed to be acting routine and only wanting to ensure all was cool. The officer even calmly asked why they wouldn't come out the door, and you heard the other one explain they were there on a domestic call. I know you think they should take the word of total strangers, but when a cop is called to an emergency situation, they don't know what is going on. For all they know these people were being uncooperative because they had a gun. Who knows. But the police DO have the right to ensure the safety of a home where a domestic violence situation could be going on. I don't think taking the word of someone through the window is the way to go, only to find out later that someone was killed because the police weren't thorough on the job. I believe Abbey pointed out elsewhere - in Cleveland, the police were called to the house where the 3 girls were kidnapped. They didn't check the situation out fully, obviously. These girls endured several more years of abuse and rape. Was it a result of the police not being thorough? I don't know that either, but I DO know that had they looked into it further WITH a search, a lot of abuse could have been avoided. Instead, they took the word of the abuser.

IF all, IF!
all your assuptions are true .
2 cops could have stayed 1 in front and 1 at the back door.
while another went to get a warrant.
problem solved.

But the police can't be be inconvenienced with the LAW.

[jimnyc]

IF all, IF!
all your assuptions are true .
2 cops could have stayed 1 in front and 1 at the back door.
while another went to get a warrant.
problem solved.

But the police can't be be inconvenienced with the LAW.

You're assuming a law was broken. I think refusing to cooperate on a domestic call, they didn't come uninvited, their failure to cooperate can EASILY be argued as failure to obey AND obstruction. But hey, let's not let the LAW get in the way.

I hate to break it to you, but by law, there ARE instances in which a citizen must obey orders, they cannot obstruct police from doing their jobs AND not every entry requires a warrant, ESPECIALLY when the call is violence related and someone can be injured.

[taft2012]

2 cops could have stayed 1 in front and 1 at the back door.
while another went to get a warrant.
problem solved.

But the police can't be be inconvenienced with the LAW.

First of all, as explained in other threads and deliberately ignored, the police do not need a warrant in this emergency situation.

Secondly, tying up 4 cops for one job while Lord knows how many other calls back up, and other emergencies have to wait in a queue, for the whole warrant process to go through? Finding a judge, filling out paperwork, etc. Do you think every city has an army of police on standby?

Finally, what is this love affair you liberals have with the judiciary? I know you like to run to them and get your little pet criminal rights passed there when the legislatures tell you to go take a hike. But still.

Do you think a judge has some kind of magic insight that makes his warrant so valuable and infallible? Does the judge have a better understanding of what's happening than the police at the scene?

What if a judge denied said warrant and it turned out someone got killed as a result?

On that basis alone a judge wouldn't ever deny a warrant for a situation like this, so what's the point of even wrangling about it in a discussion?

Absurdity.

[Missileman]

First of all, as explained in other threads and deliberately ignored, the police do not need a warrant in this emergency situation.

What emergency? The husband and wife both presented themselves at the front door.

[taft2012]

Finally, what is this love affair you liberals have with the judiciary? I know you like to run to them and get your little pet criminal rights passed there when the legislatures tell you to go take a hike. But still.

Do you think a judge has some kind of magic insight that makes his warrant so valuable and infallible? Does the judge have a better understanding of what's happening than the police at the scene?
.

This is a part of the discussion I wish was discussed more.

During the far left's outrage about warrantless wiretaps of Al Qaeda, they somehow thought that one man signing a piece of paper, a warrant, was the panacea to everything. That man; a lawyer working for the government.

Logically, that combination of lawyer-government would normally have libertarians sputtering in outrage. However, for some reason they hold them out as the means to their ends, as angels send by Ayn Rand from heaven.

So if a judge refused to sign a particular Al Qaeda wiretap warrant and an act of terrorism results, who would the left blame? An anonymous judge? Not likely.

If a judge refused to sign a warrant for a domestic violence case and someone died as a result, who would the left blame? Another anonymous judge? Not likely.

These are obstacles thrown up by leftists to disable the most legitimate functions of government, local and national security. The part of government liberals hate most.

Meanwhile, the Department of Agriculture, of the Department of Energy, they can freely trespass onto farms and cite farmers, or onto oil fields and cite oilmen, for all kinds of infractions. Liberals and libertarians really don't care. In those cases, the screams for warrants do not exist.

It's only when the government gets a little too close for comfort to that half ounce of marijuana they have hidden in the bottom of a coffee can that they start to screech.

[BillyBob]

Someone called in a domestic issue. They HAVE to ensure the safety of all parties before they can leave, or they're supposed to.

Legislating tyranny doesn't make it any less tyrannical.

[revelarts]

It must be sad to always be so angry at the police, or anyone else for that matter. .....
Logic?

Live with your infantile anger. And have a cookie.
...... ALL COPS ARE EVIL is what you're really saying.
sad.
more Logic?

a 911 call comes in... and you want a warrant issued on each and every one before any police action,
regardless of the immediacy of the situation? Logic? -never said that, can you read?-
You're certifiable. more Logic?

Time is a factor. that appears to be something you are simply intellectually unable to process.
more Logic?
-you can't seem to understand ZERO evidence of a crime-

I sincerely hope that the police are NEVER called to your home,...You'd be the first one to sue.
more Logic? based on --nada--

of course you are. You've already made up your mind that there is no need for police, no possible reason they have for entering ANY home, welcome or not... why bother with looking for facts or supporting evidence, right Fuck debate, right?
dumb ass.
more Logic or insults and made up BS

Did I stutter? No, you're just not very bright I guess.
more Logic?

The police had probable cause to enter. Said cause being the complaint called in.
more Logic? probable cause is just call no evidence at the scence ZERO?
How do you survive, hating 'the man' so much?
more Logic ? if that is example of logic you ARE more logically.
Don iicles was very Logical too i guess

Look Marcus I've Never called you stupid, your a very sharp guy, and it's not my style.
but name callin aint logic my friend

[aboutime]

Look Marcus I've Never called you stupid, your a very sharp guy, and it's not my style.
but name callin aint logic my friend

rev. Just because you are convinced that patronizing others, and using rhetoric will disguise your claims about using name calling in any way...doesn't convince someone, or anyone you target with your Obama-like, self impressed dribble.

[jimnyc]

Look Marcus I've Never called you stupid, your a very sharp guy, and it's not my style.
but name callin aint logic my friend

I mean this respectfully, Rev, but placing words in the mouths of others, over and over and over again, isn't a ton better.