NC: Cops pepper spray black foster son of white family

The BBQ Pit
841

By the way, Hamlet, I used to work as a regulator. My role was much like a “cop” in that my responsibility was to crack down on companies that were violating regulations.

I wouldn’t have been able to effectively do my job if I wasn’t an expert on pretty much every major regulation in the book. But most importantly, I also wouldn’t have been able to stay out of trouble if awareness of where my authority ended and began wasn’t always on the forefront of my mind. The companies would have nailed me to the wall the second I even thought of over-reaching. And I don’t blame them at all.

So I don’t give cops a break on this. If they care about serving the public’s interest, staying employed, keeping their department out of the news, and promoting liberty and justice for all, then they will make sure they know about constitutional rights. If they don’t care, then of course it will be obscure to them. These kind of cops need to be fired.

842

No, they are not “worlds apart”. You need probable cause and extingent circumstance for a warrantless entry, and none of that should be a shocker to someone who has LE training. Probable cause is a requirement for any search, in the absent of consent. Cops should already be familiar with probable cause because they can’t arrest people lawfully without it. All extingent circumstance does is expedite an action that, under non urgent conditions, would have qualified for a warrant.

So you’re essentially saying cops are too stupid to know that a 911 call as vague as “a black guy entered my neighbor’s house” is not probable cause for a break-in. I don’t want to see this as a reflection of your own stupidity, but even if it’s simply a reflection of your own low opinion of cop intelligence, that is sad and scary given your defense of them in this thread.

Yes I do. Must be my high-minded standards talking, but I expect people who are paid to enforce the law to actually, you know, know the law that they are enforcing.

843

At least we have a specific point to disagree on. You expect police officers to have the specificity of knowledge of every nuance of every case involving the 4th Amendment, regardless of jurisdiction, and be able to apply that to the particular facts of the what is occurring to them, all within a couple seconds, and to be right about it every single time. And if they are wrong, it’s not because they’re mistaken or they don’t have that knowledge, it’s because they’re authoritarian assholes out to hurt people.

Got it.

844

Please don’t confuse someone’s desire or personal impulse to drill down into appellate case law as a practical need to do so. Lawyers will tend to approach things from a complicated stance no matter what and, as every other human regardless of profession (perhaps more so with lawyers, 'cause they’re paid to be argumentative): “Opinions are like assholes. Everybody’s got one and everyone thinks everyone else’s stinks [or, rather, that theirs doesn’t].”

The $1.5 billion annual concern with which I’m associated would (not publicly, but still) say “the more complicated, the better, and if it *ain’t *complicated, we’ll damn well MAKE it complicated, 'cause, you know, dough $$$.”

Even the television shows get this one right (and that should tell you something). Door closed and you don’t hear screaming or something “suspicious” (that rises to level of “reasonable suspicion”) means you don’t get to enter just 'cause you wanna. Feel free to lurk and find out who owners are and attempt to contact them, however.

845

No. I can see why you think all of this is too advanced for a cop to understand. Simple concepts easily confuse you.I don’t expect officers to “have the specificity blah blah…”

But I do expect them to know when they can and can not come into my fuckin house uninvited. If the evidence is too ambiguous to know if they can come into my house, then I also expect them to have the common sense to err on the side of caution. That’s what I expect.

If a case like Currie’s is too complicated for a cop to judge correctly, then they are not qualified to carry a gun. Let this be the Kobayashi Maru for all cop trainings henceforth, and if a cop fails it, then desk jockey he shall be. There are too many other situations out there with far more complexities and moving parts than Currie’s to be letting such imbeciles roam free with weapons.

846

Or, of course, a sign that your idiot-detector is pointed the wrong direction.

I get, Shodan, that you’re constitutionally incapable of understanding how de-escalation works, and that you’re unqualified to be a cop. I don’t understand why you feel the need to demonstrate that over and over: we all understood the first time.

847

I don’t recall much discussion of the dispatcher who talked to the person who called in the “tip”. What’s the culpability of someone who hears “a black guy entered my neighbor’s house” and translates it to “possible <Cop code for burglary> in progress at my neighbor’s house” ?

848

Miss Termagant, would you object to EMTs or fireman entering a house without a warrant, or should they too have to knock and bring pie?

849

Thank you for confirming that it is pointed just fine.

Regards,
Shodan

850

Culpability for what? “A stranger entered my neighbor’s house - he’s black and 18 and the homeowner is white and has only small white children” is the same thing as “possible burglary in progress”. The race only enters into it insofar as it means that he is not one of the recognized residents of that house.

Regards,
Shodan

851

The dispatcher isn’t at fault. Stancil interviewed the neighbor who put in the 911 call and knew the substance of the complaint prior to entering the home. That the cops acted on this information without assigning any doubt to it is 100% their fault.

I don’t even blame the neighbor for jumping to conclusions. He probably thought it was better to be safe than sorry, without knowing it would trigger the cops to go into SWAT mode.

852

But the cops didn’t go into SWAT mode - that’s a lie. So the neighbor doesn’t need even that.

Regards,
Shodan

853

Morgenstern: “Miss Termagant, would you object to EMTs or fireman entering a house without a warrant, or should they too have to knock and bring pie?”

I think you know that if someone else made a similarly poor false comparison, you’d be all over that like white on rice. I humbly submit to bring up EMT or firefighter (hasn’t been fireman in a while) is to compare cumquats to [insert your preferred not-at-all-cumquat item here].

We can do better, surely, in our “fight against ignorance.”

854

So you asign no blame to the neighbor who was just being “better safe than sorry” but when the cops investigate, which is their fucking job, to be “better safe than sorry” they are evil racist assholes in your mind because the perp was black.

You are racist.

855

“Your ID doesn’t match and there is no evidence that you really live here” is not the same as “the police noticed that evidence existed that he was not legitimately in the house”, right?

Exactly what evidence was there that he was not legitimately in the house?

Regards,
CMC fnord!

856

And yet, weren’t you complaining that the public gives too much deference to the judgement and testimony of police? These two ideas do not reconcile.

As an aside - there was no research on my part necessary to come to the conclusion that a burglary in progress call with an open door is sufficient for exigent circumstances. I happen to have an interest in the law but this is probably within the scope of common knowledge for police (IMO).

No, you do not need probable cause and exigent circumstances for a warrantless entry. The caselaw was cited above, but the various standards across jurisdictions are materially similar. Shodan posted it in #710:

Notice how probable cause is not included there? You keep saying that both probable cause and exigent circumstances are required for the entry, but they are not. Again, you are wrong.

Wrong again. While not applicable in this thread, a Terry search does not require probable cause.

Here’s where I agree with you. I think this is reasonable. If they make a mistake, the avenue to address it is in the courts. It is a rare circumstance where it would be appropriate to protest the action through force as it’s occurring.

What’s funny is the Kobayashi Maru test was unbeatable. You want police to somehow pass an impossible test. That would be great satire if I didn’t think you actually believe this.

857

This statement does not follow from what I wrote, which means you’re too mentally incompetent for me to bother reading the rest of your post.

Here’s a clue: Ask Hamlet how he squares his “bend to their will no matter what because they are the authoritah” philosophy with his belief that cops are too ignorant to recognize a constitutional violation obvious enough for a high schooler to spot. It’s gotta be hard for him to sleep at night, living with the belief that cops have the power to take people’s freedom away and yet are unable to even comprehend the law that allows this freedom to exist. Perhaps this insomnia accounts for the gasket he blew a few pages ago.

In case you are still struggling to follow: I expect cops to understand the law well enough to enforce it without breaking the law themselves. This does not mean I believe in blindly deferring to them; in fact, I strenuously disagree with blind deference. Even if cops became legal scholars, submitting to a cop when he’s acting unlawfully goes against my values. If anyone has preached submission at any cost–even if means allowing a certifiable moron to take his rights away–it would be Hamlet and other pansy ass chickenshits in this thread.

858

(post shortened)

William “Billy the Kid” Bonney was a Regulator. Are you related?

859

Bone:

Given these threads can be somewhat unwieldy, what was “[t]he caselaw cited above”?

"… various standards across jurisdictions are materially similar. Shodan posted it in #710 [from Vermont, which I’ll accept as whomever’s word as being average “standard” for this kind of fact pattern (please tell me it was this kinda fact pattern)]:

Quote:

To fall within the *emergency *exception to the Fourth Amendment search warrant requirement, the State needed to show that: (1) police had reasonable grounds to believe that there was an *emergency *at hand and [not “or”] that there was an *immediate *need for their assistance for the protection of life or property; (2) the search was not primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence; and (3) there was some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the *emergency *with the place or area to be searched. State v. Mountford, 171 Vt. 487, 490 (2000).

“The police did have reasonable grounds to believe that there was immediate need for their assistance for the protection of property”

I believe that is the crux of the issue and the point at which people are talking past each other. You say “reasonable” suspicion, but the case law has started to catch up with reality, e.g., Crosby v. State, 970 A.2d 894, 408 Md. 490 (2009).

Even with neighbor’s assertion that only “white people” live in that home (gods forbid someone be visiting, housesitting or attending to X-Y-Z on behalf of them) and the fact that an (gasp!) unknown brown person was seen entering the home (and also presumably an assertion that none of the white folks were known to be at home at the time), this does not give rise to “emergency” situation. Again, I say if you want to believe X, then you lurk outside or wander around the house (and even that’s borderline) and attempt to contact the owners if you believe your suspicion is “reasonable”.

“Notice how probable cause is not included there?”

Yes, it kinda is, with the example you set out (Shodan’s).

A good many people (like me) who have friends and colleagues with not-white skin who’ve reason to be on our property or in our house would not appreciate police deciding they’re free to enter our homes (by force or by opening a door that they were not entitled to open) on the basis of some other person’s say-so to indicate it’s suspicious for a brown person to be in or on our property. A minority (I hope) of people take another view.

As I’ve said before, I find it difficult to wait for the day when the tables turn and it is the non-brown folk who will have to contend with this sort of nonsense on a routine basis. (No, it isn’t morally correct for someone to say “turnabout is fair play”, but …) It probably won’t be within my lifetime, but …

860

Very astute he nailed the age like that. Maybe a professional carnival age guesser?