Steophan, for someone who is so sure I’m just making shit up, you hang off my words an awful lot. You ever notice that?
Try yelling “Lalalalalala, I can’t heaaaar you!” a little louder.
It’s also a good idea to not be seen by a neighbor. Also, if it’s nighttime, don’t turn all the lights on. I’d also suggest stealing small, valuable, things like jewelry and cash rather than more bulky items like refrigerators and sofas.
I know I shouldn’t be posting these things, it’s against the rules to promote criminal activity, but you already got me on the whole “close the door” trade secret from my days as a cat burglar. Those were the days, I still have the striped black and white shirt and mask.
So, why do you think the door was closed again? I can’t fully understand your post, it looks like a series of non sequitors posted as a lame attempt at an ad hominem attack, but I couldn’t see the answer.
Surely it can’t be that you don’t have an answer and you are, in fact, making shit up?
They do that already. Fortunately, being despised by idiots is not nearly the calamity the idiots hope.
Regards,
Shodan
Being despised by idiots is a sure sign that you’re doing something right.
I don’t understand the distinction. Currie (according to police) was belligerent almost from the moment they entered, and it escalated to threats. He was ordered to sit down in a chair to maintain control over him. He refused, so the officer cuffed him to prevent him (as I said) from carrying out his threats. He resisted cuffing, so he was pepper sprayed.
So I don’t know what you mean. What was “better” about the situation before the police felt the need to cuff him was that Currie wasn’t making threats. Then Currie, at some point, began threatening and the police told him to sit down and stop making threats. He refused to sit down, and the police decided to cuff him. Then they cuffed him, but that didn’t stop him from making threats and being belligerent, but it was better because he couldn’t carry out the threats.
I don’t know that there was a point where the police could issue magic words that would have stopped Currie’s abuse and threats. They could have cuffed him earlier, when they patted him down for weapons - is that what you are talking about? That would certainly have stopped him from being able to carry out threats. It even might have prevented the need to use pepper spray, since he would not have had a chance to build up a head of steam.
Regards,
Shodan
Particularly for a certain type of vocal and self-righteous idiots, who are used to having their own way.
I note you are not very popular with some Dopers also. 
Regards,
Shodan
You seem to understand what I mean quite well, I would have said. The situation ended up per the police feeling the need to subdue Currie, lest he assault them. It didn’t start that way. Your use of “magic words” seems at least a little patronising - you can’t imagine that with care a potentially threatening person could be toned down from their initial belligerency, without mysterious, certainly imaginary words? Or, I suppose as others have suggested, that it could have been the police’s questioning that caused the uptick from annoyed to angered to threatening? I confess that I’m not a cop, but I have a job that entails customer service, and I’ve talked down an angry, belligerent person before. Alas, I’m no wizard.
As I understand your point, it is that effectively there was nothing the police could have possibly done to avert the situation. Currie began annoyed; inevitably, he would become angered and threatening, regardless of what the police said or did (or didn’t say and didn’t do). Is that right?
I have a theory.
Just a theory – I don’t know any of these officers.
But in my previous life, I had the opportunity to observe plenty of police officers and how they chose to relate information. In my experience, the vast majority were not willing to lie under oath. But many of them were willing to… er… frame their recitation in a way that suggested a certain set of facts.
Probable cause isn’t much of a standard to begin with. It’s not “beyond a reasonable doubt,” or “clear and convincing,” or even the bare “preponderance of the evidence,” the latter being the “just a smidge above 50% likely.” Probable cause is a lower standard even than that: it says there’s information in play that would allow a reasonable, prudent person to reasonably believe that a crime may be in play.
When the police are called about a burglary and they find an open door, that’s enough. When the police are called for a burglary and they don’t find an open door, it isn’t.
They could have been conciliatory. “I’m sorry, sir – we got a report of a burglary and we found the side door open, so we wanted to make sure you were safe and no one was in here holding you hostage. Are you OK? Have you seen or heard anyone else in the house?”
I suppose it’s possible Currie could have flown into a rage then, but somehow I doubt it.
I just read the police report again, and am leaning towards eulalia’s interpretation of events. It sounds like “finding an open door” is exactly what they did. They found it by entering a closed one.
None of the officers’ statements indicates the garage was open.
What do they say about the garage? You do understand that their silence about it tells you absolutely nothing about the state of the door, right? Even assuming they passed through more than one door, which is also not supported by facts.
You are, once again, making stuff up. Why?
Why are you squawking like an injured bird every time I post something that upsets your idea of what happened?
Then their entry was violative of the Fourth Amendment. If they had found stacks of child porn DVDs buried in mounds of heroin and surrounded by belt-fed machine guns, all that evidence would have been inadmissible.
Here is a picture of the house.
The door on the far right enters into the garage. I believe this is the door that Stancil tested and found unlocked. Stancil reported this as the door that Currie entered when the neighbor spotted him. There was no evidence in the report that this door was ajar.
The door inside the garage, that opens into the kitchen, is the one that the other two cops noted as ajar. I’m sorry, but that is the most bogus evidence for a break-in imaginable. The cops might as well have been talking about a bedroom door that is cracked open.
I’m sure the True Believers will continue to deny anything that differs from the narrative that pleases them the most, but I’m posting all of this in case more open-minded people are interested.
I don’t know. It’s possible that a conciliatory tone would have prevented Currie’s outbursts and threats.
However, the accounts of the police and of Currie seem to agree that his threats started when they questioned the fact that his assertion that he lived there was contradicted by the neighbor’s story, his own ID, and even incidentals like the lack of pictures of him in the home where he supposedly lived with his adopted parents. (Currie said he was adopted in one account at least - this was technically untrue, since this was his foster mother and not his legal mother.)
So the police, not sure at this point if he was a resident or a burglar, wished to maintain control of him while they ascertained which he was. Which they did by requiring him to sit down on a chair while they investigated the house, looking (presumably) for signs of ransacking, accomplices, pictures of Currie, the dead bodies of the homeowners, or other indications that Currie really did (or really didn’t) llive there.
But the police didn’t know for sure which it was. And the balance of probability at that point was slightly on the side of “burglar”, or at least “he doesn’t live here”.
Thus they needed to maintain control over him, in case he really was a burglar, so he couldn’t escape and also so he couldn’t attack them as he was threatening to do. I rather doubt if a conciliatory or apologetic tone is going to get a violent burglar (or nutcase homeless guy who wandered in and made himself at home) to calm down and accept being arrested nicely. So the police adopted the minimal step, not of cuffing him, but of requesting/requiring him to sit down. Which he refused to do.
Now I suppose the police could have continued to ask him to sit down and stop his threats. But IMO - and I suppose this is where we differ - as a general approach to subjects who refuse minor orders like “sit down and shut up” and instead continue to threaten violence, cuffing them is a better option overall than sweet reason. Probably in the case of an outraged homeowner, the soft touch might work better, but not in the case of a burglar caught in the act. And, at that point, it looked somewhat more lilke the latter than the former.
But he refused to sit down, so they decided to cuff him, and he refused to be cuffed so they decided to pepper spray him.
Whether or not you’re the homeowner, you don’t threaten the cops.
As a general approach to enforcing public order, designed to be applied to a variety of situations where it is not clear what is going on but you are dealing with upset people, maintaining control of the situation thru use of the Command Voice first, cuffing second (with attendant less-lethal means to bring cuffing about) and shooting people last, is IMO a better default approach while you continue to investigate and find out if you are dealing with a belligerent who is belligerent because he was caught in the act or belligerent because he lacks emotional control.
Obviously once it is known that he is legitimately in the house, he can be treated differently from a burglar. But Currie started going nutszoid the instant the police noticed that evidence existed that he was not legitimately in the house, and so the police did not know that he should have been treated differently.
IOW I am not sure there is a way of saying “Your ID doesn’t match and there is no evidence that you really live here - sit down while we check the rest of the house” that would not have caused Currie to go ballistic.
Regards,
Shodan
Yet another comment from our resident termagant that shows an amazing lack of self awareness.
"Mr. Currie, because your ID doesn’t match this address, we will have to contact your parents or caseworker to confirm, but for your own safety we have to clear the house first to ensure that nobody came in without your knowledge, please have a seat. "
Might work a bit better than telling Currie to “sit down and shut up”.
Because you are making up a load of utter bullshit, and it’s conceivable that some unfortunate passer-by might not realise that you are a notorious delusional, police-hating, racist troll who’s allergic to reason or even basic common sense or human decency, and it’s my unpleasant duty to make them aware of it.
So, lying fuckwit, show me the evidence that the door was shut. Oh, you can’t, you’ll just link to a picture of a random garage. What the fuck is wrong with you?