Don't let your children out at night ... there might be cops about

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

You ignored my post, Tribesman.

unless they have a badge

Part of the problem (beyond the officers' incompetence) was they were in plainclothes and in an unmarked van and failed to identify themselves, was it not? That's what's laid out in the lawsuit pdf. If that's how it happened can't you see some wrong-doing in the policemen's action? Or does possession of a badge absolve one of all guilt?

[Tribesman]

His cousin got off his medication for a little bit, walked around his neighborhood stark naked. Completely looney. The cops rolled up, one of them messed with him and he somehow managed to grab his nightstick and was walking around with it. Cops shot him. Media either said he attacked them or was charging at them with the nightstick. Both stories are complete lies, and even if they arent they shot a naked guy with a nightstick wtf.

Says it all , too right they should have shot him .

The only person who I ever looked up too, who taught me alot of what I know. He was trying to get money for his business and his house was raided last week by narcotics (I wont elaborate).

Yeah thats someone to look up to , someone who wants a business but finances it with drugs and then is dumb enough to get busted and jailed ..what a role model

You ignored my post, Tribesman

No I didn't .
Notice the big "IF" in your post

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

There's evidence that they did say "oi we're the police, here's our badges"?

[Mooks]

Says it all , too right they should have shot him .

Because a life isnt worth disarming a naked guy(Which I could do without any training, a cop should be able to do no problem)...after all you might touch his penis...and thats gay!

Jokes aside, I lost respect for you.

[Tribesman]

There's evidence that they did say "oi we're the police, here's our badges"?

Is there evidence that they didn't ?

Jokes aside, I lost respect for you.

My heart bleeds , I am shattered and devestasted that someone who says the only person he looked up to was a drug dealer who got caught has now decided to lose respect for me

[Crazed Rabbit]

That's BS. They had no way of knowing if there were armed people around or not. Your Constitution says people may carry guns - how could the cops possibly know that everyone around them was unarmed? Utter BS. The threat of retaliatory violence isn't worth anything - Australia has very restrictive gun laws and we get far fewer cases of police brutality (Though Melbourne is getting a lot of problems with over-use of Tasers). The problem is letting the police remain armed.

No, its not. If the cops are so worried about being shot, why burst into people's houses? That's more likely to get them shot than trying to resolve things peacefully - even if that means the police don't get to dress up and play special forces. Look at the example I wrote of.

And here in America we're getting problems with tasers as well - its a way to shoot people with less than lethal force, and so is becoming overused. Diabetic woman stuck in her car not listening to police orders after a traffic accident? Taser her! Non-violent school district councilman off his meds and acting strange in my high school? Taser him! Multiple times, so he screams and thrashes in front of all the kids.

Its a classic case of having a hammer and seeing every problem as a nail.

CR

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Is there evidence that they didn't ?

The lawsuit claims they didn't, and I think they forfeited the benefit of the doubt when they were on the wrong street picking up alleged prostitutes of the wrong skin color.

[Tribesman]

The lawsuit claims they didn't

Well that settles it then , there was lawsuits claiming Obama had a fake birth certificate so that means he must have had one
See where the big "IF" comes in Alex ?
So you have a twelve year old who was obviously scared who is going to have to tesify accurately and convincingly exactly what happened and what was said .
She will be backed up by someone who wasn't there at the start but heard some noise and then saw some commotion then went to the scene , and someone who joined them even later .
Doesn't sound like much of a case does it , even a bloody good lawyer is really going to have to perform magic for the jury with that one isn't he .

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Of course, the coppers would never have an interest in covering up something like a botched vice bust...

[Tribesman]

Of course, the coppers would never have an interest in covering up something like a botched vice bust...

What is there to cover up?
Its an open and shut example of resisting arrest .

[Crazed Rabbit]

Oh, tribesy, you and your crazy trolling. You always say the wildest things. Open and shut case - ha! We'll see how much the city settles for.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter." Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

In related news, in a survey of ER doctors, 99.8% believe police use excessive force to arrest and detain subjects, and 97.8% had actually been involved in a case of excessive force.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – In a survey of a random sample of U.S. emergency physicians, virtually all said they believed that law enforcement officers use excessive force to arrest and detain suspects.

The sample included 315 respondents. While 99.8 percent believed excessive force is used, almost as many (97.8 percent) reported that they had managed cases that they suspected or that the patient stated had involved excessive use of force by law enforcement officers.

Nearly two thirds (65.3 percent) estimated that they had treated two or more cases of suspected excessive use of force per year among their patients, according to a report of the survey published in the January 2009 issue of the Emergency Medicine Journal.

Dr. Jared Strote of the University of Washington, Seattle, and a multicenter team also found that emergency physicians at public teaching hospitals were roughly four times more likely to report managing cases of suspected use of excessive force than those at university or community teaching emergency departments.

Blunt trauma inflicted by fists or feet was the most common type of injury cited in cases of suspected use of excessive force, followed by "overly tight" handcuffs.

Most emergency physicians (71.2 percent) admitted that they did not report cases of suspected use of excessive force by law enforcement officers.

A large majority (96.5 percent) reported that they had no departmental policies on reporting their suspicions or they did not know of a policy to guide their actions, and 93.7 percent said they had received no education or training in dealing with these situations.

However, most emergency physicians (69.5 percent) felt that it was within their scope of practice to refer cases of suspected use of excessive force for investigation and almost half (47.9 percent) felt that emergency physicians should be legally required to report cases of suspected use of excessive force by law enforcement officers.

These findings, Strote and colleagues conclude, "suggest that national emergency medicine organizations in the USA should become involved, jointly developing and advocating for guidelines to manage this complex issue."

SOURCE: Emergency Medicine Journal, January 2009.

CR

[Tribesman]

Oh, tribesy, you and your crazy trolling. You always say the wildest things.

Oh dear , hey Rabbit

In the United States, the principle right of self-defense supported by Runyan is generally understood accepted not only by legal professionals but also by the general public. However, one exception to this general acceptance of the self-defense principle is when in the context of actions taken against the instrumentality of the government.

errrr...instrumentality of the government ?
errrrr...that would include a police force wouldn't it

Open and shut case - ha! We'll see how much the city settles for.

For the police to justify the legality of the attempt at arrest only have to show probable cause
So lets see , they are looking for prostitutes , they see a 5'6" female alone at night wearing not much .
Probable cause to suspect she may be engaged in prostitution ? Easy .
Try again

oh and......

"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter."

errrrr....well done Rabbit an entirely irrelevant ruling , congratulations

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

So lets see , they are looking for prostitutes , they see a 5'6" female alone at night wearing not much .

Wrong skin color and wrong area from the reported incident...

[Crazed Rabbit]

For the police to justify the legality of the attempt at arrest only have to show probable cause
So lets see , they are looking for prostitutes , they see a 5'6" female alone at night wearing not much .
Probable cause to suspect she may be engaged in prostitution ? Easy .

So you do not think the city will settle or lose a court judgment?

CR

[Tribesman]

So you do not think the city will settle or lose a court judgment?

Not unless they have a really crap lawyer and the family have a bloody good one .

Wrong skin color and wrong area from the reported incident...

Irrelevant .
Just because they had a report on one incident it doesn't mean that a routine patrol cannot act if they see something else that arouses their suspicions to possible illegal activity .
Thats why Rabbits legal precedents don't hold up in this case .
It would be different if they had arrested her as they suspected she was in the act of robbing a bank as there would be no cause for that suspicion and therefore no legal probable cause under the law , or if they arrested her claiming she was 3 white prostitutes as that wouldn't hold .
But suspicion of being a streetwalker ...hey thats easy to prove , just as it would have been easy to prove her as innocent of the allegtions if she hadn't resisted arrest .
And remember the resisting arrest continued long after it was clearly established to all witnesses that these men were police doing what they thought was their job .


As an extra
Its interesting to note considering the OP and the gun nonsense contained there that the father did have a gun handy , but fortunately he had more sense than to confront the police with it .

[Strike For The South]

As an extra
Its interesting to note considering the OP and the gun nonsense contained there that the father did have a gun handy , but fortunately he had more sense than to confront the police with it .

The father didn't wanna die, the most basic of common sense.

[Tribesman]

The father didn't wanna die, the most basic of common sense.

No the basic common sense for a father would be to protect his daughter .
He saw what was happening so surely he would have picked up his gun on the way down and shot the evil men that were abducting his daughter....oh unless of course he saw what was happening and realised going down with a gun to confront the police isn't a good idea .

[Watchman]

Huh. Around here most of the guns are out in the summer cottages and whatnot, seeing as they're hunting rifles and shotguns. Occasionally some wit out in the boonies goes nuts, starts shooting around, maybe kills his family (although those usually then shoot themselves), that sort of thing. The cops' SOP is to siege the cot until the guy either starts listening to sense and turns himself in, or they deem him to be sufficiently dangerous to require the attentions of a SWAT-equivalent assault team or sniper. In which case he heads to hospital first and gets interrogated and charged later.

And, hey, what do you know ? Incidents of police brutality and suchlike are something like zero, and the profession consistently enjoys quite high respect and regard in polls.

CR, maybe you just should have a society and law enforcement system that aren't screwed up six ways to Sunday ? Might be more helpful for this sort of thing than everybody being armed to the teeth...

[LittleGrizzly]

I don't want to come across as a police hater, my mum is going out with a copper and he is a lovely guy, i do think the police force would encourage a higher percentage of people who are arrogant and power hungry, and the profession in itself encourages an arrogant attitude (for good reasons of personal safety maybe) im not sure what can be done about this, maybe encourage friendlier policing. Maybe as a young person who wears a hoody i am sterotyped by the cops and other people get much nicer treatment from the police, but i sterotype the profession as arrogant harsh and unfriendly with a bit of power hungryness thrown in. That said i respectfully talk to them as long as they are with me, but for a long time in mine or friends dealings with the police i have find them to be unfair overly aggressive and arrogant (a few nice ones though)

[Fragony]

Well I can't stand the police all they do is giving silly fines. Wouldn't be so bad if they were of any use but they are lazy and uninterested, completely useless.

[Watchman]

That rather sounds like you recently got one of those cute little slips of paper on your windshield recently.

[Tribesman]

That rather sounds like you recently got one of those cute little slips of paper on your windshield recently.

Frag is stil upset that he got caught riding his bike in a pedestrianised area .

[Fragony]

Frag is stil upset that he got caught riding his bike in a pedestrianised area .

Shopping street where it is allowed till 11:00 got the fine 11:02. I don't know how it is in Ireland but here the police has a quotum, they have to collect a certain amount of money that is there job.

[AlexanderSextus]

Well I can't stand the police all they do is giving silly fines. Wouldn't be so bad if they were of any use but they are lazy and uninterested, completely useless.

Same here in the US except weed is a criminal offense so that actually gives them something to do.

[Crazed Rabbit]

CR, maybe you just should have a society and law enforcement system that aren't screwed up six ways to Sunday ? Might be more helpful for this sort of thing than everybody being armed to the teeth...

And maybe we could have world peace as well. But like I said the SCOTUS has screwed over the American people on Constitutional protections and police departments fight anything that would have oversight over them (like the situation in the city of Atlanta - the PD is saying the commission set up to review police actions needs to be rendered meaningless).

So yes, having a nationwide change in policies and dramatically changing the culture of law enforcement would be very nice, but its also very difficult.

Tribesy, do you have any link about the homeowner having a gun, or is this just more of your BS?

CR

[Lord Winter]

I'm curious what cases would you say screwed over the american people?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Specifically there were some cases that the SCOTUS removed any meaning from the fourth amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A short list of examples:
The case were the SCOTUS said the government can set up road checkpoints to search for illegal immigrants within 100 miles of the US border (which covers 190MM people now). Of course, since 9/11 the government has been stretching the meaning to search for much more, like drugs, having drug sniffing dogs at some checkpoints - how are those supposed to find illegals?

So we have a 'border exception' - the government doesn't need at warrant if you're at the border, so federal courts have ruled they can search through all your stuff - computers and electronics - to sniff out illegal actions.

In a different case, federal courts have ruled that bringing in dozens of armed, masked, shotgun pumping police to do an 'alcohol board inspection' on a bar after the police couldn't get a warrant doesn't violate the fourth amendment. (This whole case is a prime example of abuse of power)

Or the 1983 case that stated police could use drug-sniffing dogs on your belongings without getting a warrant - in that case on luggage at an airport. In 2005, the court said police could use drug sniffing dogs at routine traffic stops with no reason or suspicion.

Earlier this year the SCOTUS said evidence found after an unlawful arrest of someone is submittable for use in court. That went against precedent.

In these two cases, the court practically demolished any requirement for the police to knock on a door and announce themselves by providing loopholes very widely exploited by the police.

CR

[Tribesman]

Hey Rabbit you see the problem there don't you ?
The constitution is a badly written piece of crap .
In this case it all hinges on one word .
unreasonable

Tribesy, do you have any link about the homeowner having a gun, or is this just more of your BS?

[Lord Winter]

Many of those are lower level court options, where others you could make a fair case that there was reasonable cause. Such as the drug sniffing dogs at airports ruling (past history of smuggling = reasonable cause). UNITED STATES v. MARTINEZ-FUERTE is troubling and probably needs further attention.

I was confused by this statement though:

"The arrest rules that the officers violated were those of state law alone," Scalia said. "It is not the province of the Fourth Amendment to enforce state law."

Doesn't the 14th addmendment extend the consitution to state laws?

[Crazed Rabbit]

The 14th did extend most, but not yet all, of the bill of rights to cover the states. I do think it covers the fourth.

I think it was Richards v Wisconsin and Wilson v Arkansas, the last 2 links, that removed any real requirement for the police to ever knock and announce themselves, which led to all the SWAT teams raiding homes and other outrages.

The constitution is a badly written piece of crap

Ah yes, we should instead take direction from the numerous well written constitutions put forth by the EU.

CR