Yes, but he didn’t break in because he wasn’t 1) chasing your friend and 2) he didn’t SEE him enter the structure. You WERE preventing him from the discharge of his duties, but he didn’t know that, or have reason to suspect. Your assertion that he “knew he was home” is predicated on the fact that you knew it and your assumption that the baliff did which may not have been true.
It doesn’t matter in the eyes of the law if you know you’re under arrest or not. If you are given a lawful order by a peace officer in the execution of his duties and you do not heed that order, what you know or don’t know is hardly relevant at the time the order is issued, as long as you are obviously of sound mind (read: not obviously mentally challenged).
Reasonable people do not refuse to be identified, and the law is not on the side of those who do.
Fuckin’ lazy cop! In the old days, he’d’ve burned the fuckin’ house with the fuckin’ hippies in it, burned it right to the ground and pissed on their charred bodies as they tried to crawl back to fuckin’ Russia!
Is there no pride in doing a day’s work for a day’s pay any more?
You misunderstand. I’m not defending the cop in his assertion of injury by the suspect. I believe that charge will likely be tossed too. I’m proving a point to lowbrass that you can indeed be injured by a wooden door, that it’s POSSIBLE, although not, as I said previously about this case, bloody likely.
What hasn’t changed anywhere in this thread is the fact that the act of shutting the door was resisting, and therefore generally justifies the actions of the officer in putting foot to door. Period. Perhaps the cop’s a douche, but the law is on his side.
I don’t know whether the witness is truly unbiased or what he really saw. So I’m not willing to jump to conclusions. I don’t necessarily believe the deputy either. I don’t think we’ve got enough evidence. I also don’t know if there are other witnesses with different stories.
Sigh. I really don’t give a shit, frankly, but enjoy the irony if you like. Although, I think it’s misplaced. I didn’t really cite it for anything other than the fact that eyewitness testimony isn’t very reliable. Eyewitness evidence doesn’t get better or more reliable just because it favors my side.
Actually, yes I can. The glass used in windows, whether single paned or double, has a tendency to produce long fractures when broken. It’s not safety glass like in your car windows, it turns in to a bunch of small brittle knives. The movie thing where you see glass shatter is a myth. It’ll break, but it forms very, very jagged pieces. Do not ever, and I mean ever try to punch through a glass window. It ain’t the movies. You will need stitches.
Plate glass is mean. The article says “scrapes and cuts”. It’s the scrapes that make me suspect it’s wood. You’re not going to get “scrapes and cuts” from throwing your fist through a plate glass window. You’re going to get gashes that need stitches.
Actually, if it was the glass on the sidelite of the door (which he would have broken to gain access to the locks) that you can break pretty easily with a punch and escape serious injury. You could even use, say, the end of a baton and wait until the glass falls away to stick your hand in.
Oh good god, it seems obvious that he didn’t get his hand slammed in the door, and it’s probably gonna get tossed as a charge anyway. The resisting should stick though.
The witness, asshole. It’s already been cited three times. Just accept it and move on. Even Buttonjockey cn admit that the deputy is probably full of shit about the door slam. It’s not like that one bone of contention is the whole ballgame in this thread.
I am a law-abiding, reasonable person. I strenuously object to being forced to provide identification at random, and unless I thought an officer had legal basis, would refuse to provide ID. (Granted, from reading this thread, it’s clear that a *prudent *person would provide ID upon being told they’re being cited.)
OMFG, goddam stoners messed with the page, I guess. It worked initially, now doesn’t.