So knock and let the “unknown person” identify themselves. If they’d done this like the should have had, then none of the rest would have happened.
Here is how it should have gone down:
Cops: (knock knock)
wait 30 seconds. Currie opens the door.
Currie: Hello?
Cops: Hi, we’re the police. We’ve investigating the report of a possible burglary. Mind if we come in and talk with you for minute?
Currie: Uhh, okay. What’s this all about, though? Can you explain the nature of the call? No break ins have happened in this house.
Cops: A neighbor reported seeing an unknown black male enter through the side door.
Cufffie: That sounds like me, but I live here. I’m a foster kid. Been here for a year already, so it’s weird this neighbor hasn’t seen me before.
Cops: Okay. Yeah that is weird. Do you have the name and number of someone who could verify this? And oh yeah, what’s your name, son? We’ll just check this out and then be on our way.
See how this works? If you come at someone in a hostile, aggressive manner, that is what you will get in return. If you ambush and then treat them like they are a criminal in their own house, then don’t be surprised if they get angry and uncooperative.
That’s the core of it, I suspect: innocent people don’t like being handcuffed, as it makes them feel like criminals, is uncomfortable, etc. Police often handcuff innocent people as part of a Terry stop. Combine the two, and an innocent person ends up pepper sprayed, without the police having done anything wrong. Ideally, parents should teach their children not to resist or argue with police in these situations, but rather to cooperate and remain calm, even if they’ve done nothing wrong. It’s asking a lot of a teenager, granted, but it’s what citizens should do in these situations: contest police mistakes after the fact, not during the stop.
In this case, the family had moved to this neighborhood a few months prior.
Nothing wrong with being pissed off, it’s what you do when your pissed off that counts.
Here’s the kicker. You never have the right to resist a police officer performing his duty, at least, not in my state. That, in and of itself, is a crime. Your remedy, if one exists at all, is after the incident.
It’s a fair question (though not necessarily relevant since this really isn’t a Fourth Amendment issue). There is little indication that the entry was required to prevent a violent crime or an escape.
Exigent circumstances can also exist to prevent property damage. A reasonable belief of burglary in progress is sufficient exigent circumstances to justify entry without a warrant.
That’s true. But what you’re missing is that the police entry in this situation was consistent with Curry’s constitutional rights. That’s the question, not whether they should have knocked, telephoned, or whatever.
It’s a riskier approach for sure. A standard door or the house wall isn’t going to offer much ballistic protection if the guy inside turns out to be an armed bad guy who’s “not going back to prison”.
That’s why the police waited for backup and went inside as a unit both announcing their presence and drawing their firearms. They’d like to go home at the end of their shift. /shrug
That may seem dramatic, but over a third of police deaths (so far) this year are by firearm. That percentage holds up in each of the last 5 years or so. (Didn’t bother checking further).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23
I have a better idea: instead of nitpicking and being a dick to annoy the liberals, come up with a scenario where this was actually reasonable.
Everybody loves fake politeness attached to grotesque opinions, though. You’re still totally selling that illusion.
Regards,
GeorgeWill’sBowtie
Why are you and **Colibri **being such fucks about this? You know that ‘define X’ is a standard motif for anybody to use in a controversial subject, by both liberals and conservatives.
What they did was far more riskier for them. They could’ve gotten their faces blown off by anyone with a gun and Jason Bourne reflexes, whether that be by a criminal or lawful occupant.
Here’s another problem with their actions. When they barged in with guns and yelling, Currie would have been justifiably scared enough to run away from them in a panic. How many of yall wanna bet the cops would have taken that as proof that he was burglarizing the place? He would’ve been then chased, tackled, and possibly beaten. And if Currie had fought back, he could’ve been killed. In his own home. Senselessly. Just because the cops acted on a prejudiced assumption.
None of us know this kid’s background. He’s in a foster home, so we can guess he has had a very rough childhood. He might have been the victim of abuse. He could be struggling with PTSD and other mental illnesses from a life of coping with violence.
You can condemn Currie because he failed to meet the cops’ hostility towards him with sweet meekness, and you can act like you would have let the whole thing roll off your back if you’d been in his position. But you have no idea how you would have responded if you’d actually been him, with all his life experiences and baggage. The cops didn’t either. They are lucky he was an innocent unarmed kid, because they could’ve stupidly lost their life that day.
Because they wanted to pretend it wasn’t controversial, just a straightforward example of racist pigs attacking an innocent black guy just because they could.
I ruined their sense of absolute moral superiority, which spoiled the whole RO aspect of the thread.
I wonder if, eventually, making fun of liberals will be defined as “trolling”, as some would like to do.
Yep. All of this is irrelevant to whether the police legitimately entered the home. Does this mean you’re backing off your claim that the police violated the fourth amendment here? I can’t tell.
Look, LHoD you’re a knee-jerking moron like the rest of the idiots around here, and your premature ejaculations of racism have been interrupted by the cold breath of skeptical derision. Boo hoo for you.
Why would you think I’m backing off? I don’t think they had a lawful reason for entering the home the way that they did, and none of yall have been able to prove otherwise.
If the door they entered had been locked, do you think they would have cause to bust down the door without knocking or announcing themselves? This is an important litmus test for imminent public harm. If you’re saying Currie’s situation fell short of this level of urgency and evidence, then you need to square this with your claim that this represented an extingent circumstance.
If in your view, “I saw an unknown black dude enter my neighbor’s house” does justify busting down a door and entering without knocking, then you’re essentially saying that warrants are optional pieces of paper. A triviality that can be disregarded at a cops’ discretion.
So all a neighbor would need to do is call your local cops and tell them they heard a rape-like cry coming from your bedroom window. Viola! Cops will bust into your house while you are making love to your SO and throw your naked ass against the wall. You cool with this? Please tell me are so I can go ahead and put that call through now.