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.

[Marcus Aurelius]

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[revelarts]

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.

expecting and the police to follow the constitution and the laws = no police in you mind Marcus.
no problem.
people are stupid for thinking the Constitution means a D2mn thing. Just obey the police and everything is perfect.
enjoy folks.

[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]

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.

[Marcus Aurelius]

If the police left without any investigation, and one person kills or injures the other... all Hell would break loose and people would be screaming that the police didn't do their jobs.

[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?

[jimnyc]

If the police left without any investigation, and one person kills or injures the other... all Hell would break loose and people would be screaming that the police didn't do their jobs.

And it's happened - Cleveland....

The police are CONTINUALLY criticized for failure to uncover incidents and similar, not taking their jobs seriously and allowing a rapist or murderer to rape or murder again. If they pulled up, knocked, the guy said "all is fine", and they left - and then they discover the next day that he killed his wife minutes later - they would be remiss in their duties for not ensuring the safety of ALL occupants as they are trained.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius
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.

expecting and the police to follow the constitution and the laws = no police in you mind Marcus.
no problem.
people are stupid for thinking the Constitution means a D2mn thing. Just obey the police and everything is perfect.
enjoy folks.

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

The police had probable cause to enter. Said cause being the complaint called in.

How do you survive, hating 'the man' so much?

[Marcus Aurelius]

And it's happened - Cleveland....

The police are CONTINUALLY criticized for failure to uncover incidents and similar, not taking their jobs seriously and allowing a rapist or murderer to rape or murder again. If they pulled up, knocked, the guy said "all is fine", and they left - and then they discover the next day that he killed his wife minutes later - they would be remiss in their duties for not ensuring the safety of ALL occupants as they are trained.

Rev was the same whiney ass about the Boston lockdown and house to house. God forbid the bomber was behind a door, with a gun to someones head forcing them to say 'all is well', and the cops leave it at that.

[revelarts]

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.

with reason , But the police are not our bosses they have to obey the law as well as we and there NO need to assume they have all the authority they claim in EVERY instances jim.

If the police left without any investigation, and one person kills or injures the other... all Hell would break loose and people would be screaming that the police didn't do their jobs.

if they have reason to believe there is that much trouble a foot,

g e t -a- w a r r a n t


what's wrong with that Jim , Marcus?