Another police/rights video

[jimnyc]

Exigent circumstance

Main article: Exigent circumstance in United States law
There are also "exigent circumstances" exceptions to the warrant requirement. Exigent circumstances arise when the law enforcement officers have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an immediate need to protect their lives, the lives of others, their property, or that of others, the search is not motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence, and there is some reasonable basis, to associate an emergency with the area or place to be searched.^[70]


There wasn't anything on that video that could pass for exigent circumstance. They were talking to the cops, they were refusing to leave their house to do so. The video contained no agressive movements or statements prior to the cops entry. Combative, my ass!

And, if that's not enough, the bolded part is the real kicker. When they kicked in the door, they were indeed intending to arrest.

I think their intent to arrest came after the people refused to cooperate and were impeding the officers investigation. The call alone gave them reason to believe something was going on within the home, then their refusal to cooperate or come out and clear things up ramped it up another notch.

Considering you didn't address the other portion of my post, I'll assume you concede that I never denied the law which you wrote and that portion was written up fantasy.

[Missileman]

I think their intent to arrest came after the people refused to cooperate and were impeding the officers investigation. The call alone gave them reason to believe something was going on within the home, then their refusal to cooperate or come out and clear things up ramped it up another notch.

Regardless, exigent circumstance didn't exist.

Considering you didn't address the other portion of my post, I'll assume you concede that I never denied the law which you wrote and that portion was written up fantasy.

Yeah, deny was the wrong word...willfully disregard is more accurate.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Regardless, exigent circumstance didn't exist.

as has been pointed out to you, you don't get to make that determination... the officers on the scene do.

[Missileman]

as has been pointed out to you, you don't get to make that determination... the officers on the scene do.

And as has been pointed out, cops aren't always right. Exigent circumstance doesn't exist just because the cops are called, otherwise they'd NEVER need a warrant.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius
as has been pointed out to you, you don't get to make that determination... the officers on the scene do.

And as has been pointed out, cops aren't always right. Exigent circumstance doesn't exist just because the cops are called, otherwise they'd NEVER need a warrant.

which of you is right isn't my point. my point is that you, not being present, do not get to determine if the exigent circumstances existed. The cops, being there, do. If it goes to court and they are judged incorrect, so be it. But the initial determination is theirs to make, not yours as an armchair internet lawyer.

[Missileman]

which of you is right isn't my point. my point is that you, not being present, do not get to determine if the exigent circumstances existed. The cops, being there, do. If it goes to court and they are judged incorrect, so be it. But the initial determination is theirs to make, not yours as an armchair internet lawyer.

All I've ever said is that there was no exigent circumstance (based on the legal definition) evident on the video.

[Marcus Aurelius]

All I've ever said is that there was no exigent circumstance (based on the legal definition) evident on the video.

And I said YOU do not get to make that determination... the officers on the scene do... ESPECIALLY when all YOU have to work with is a 2 minute video. Their call, not yours.

[jimnyc]

Regardless, exigent circumstance didn't exist.



Yeah, deny was the wrong word...willfully disregard is more accurate.

Willfully disregard? How about I just see things differently? You can't disagree without making stuff up about the other person or trying to put them down somehow? Even legal analysts are divided over the actions here. So I suppose each analyst that feels it was within their rights, they are ALL willfully ignoring the law?

I won't take your bait. I'll just say that I stand by my original words. If you need to take cheap shots, make up claims and such, so be it. I'm not going to get into a shitting contest with someone because they can't handle that I see things differently.

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont like how the domestic laws are written.

in california, someone must be arrested.

instead of letting the police sort it out

and 9 times out of ten I believe the police are going to side with the woman

because our culture acts *for a lot of people and the most part* as if men are always the aggresor and women are always the victim

pisses me off deeply

[logroller]

Has anybody posted the video of the Temple Texas guy who was arrested for interfering with a police officer...

Curious to see how this plays out.

[jimnyc]

Has anybody posted the video of the Temple Texas guy who was arrested for interfering with a police officer..

Watched all of this one yesterday. I don't have an issue with the cops checking up on an armed person to ensure what they are up to, but they too must remain within the law. I don't think they should be able to "take" a weapon from someone in that manner, when they have committed no crime and aren't walking down the midst of main street. I DO have an issue with the guys who do so purposely, walk down main street with an AK or similar (and yes, I know the law is the same, but provoking is my issue...). But this guy seemed to be legit and was out with his son. I hope the video helps him get any and all charges dropped in court.

[logroller]

Watched all of this one yesterday. I don't have an issue with the cops checking up on an armed person to ensure what they are up to, but they too must remain within the law. I don't think they should be able to "take" a weapon from someone in that manner, when they have committed no crime and aren't walking down the midst of main street. I DO have an issue with the guys who do so purposely, walk down main street with an AK or similar (and yes, I know the law is the same, but provoking is my issue...). But this guy seemed to be legit and was out with his son. I hope the video helps him get any and all charges dropped in court.

Seems to me it was poorly handled by the officer. Having been in a similar situation, the officer got on the loudspeaker and instructed me and some friends to set down the weapons. It's a reasonable request for the safety of the officer; we complied and nothing more came of it. Much better tactic than what it is seen in the video. Admittedly we don't know what transpired before he was detained, but I suspect he was asked why he had a rifle and he rebuked the question and that set off the officer. I can understand the officer's concern for his safety, but so too can understand that the line of questioning was based on a presupposed suspicion that should have warranted a request or order to set the weapon down. stuggling to disarm someone could go horribly wrong and should only be done after exhausting amicable solutions. As a peace officer, he should know that.

[BillyBob]

Has anybody posted the video of the Temple Texas guy who was arrested for interfering with a police officer...

Curious to see how this plays out.

I started a thread about it a couple days ago.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...f-Fascist-Cops

[logroller]

UPDATE on Temple TX case: Apparently the charges against Grisham were changed from resisting a peace officer to interfering with one. Court date pushed to October 19
http://m.tdtnews.com/news/article_89....html?mode=jqm

[Arbo]

Ah, I had forgot about this one. Guy was a jackass, but so were the cops.