Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 55

Thread: 20 police surround, slam, arrest unarmed man

  1. #1
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803

    20 police surround, slam, arrest unarmed man

    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=244749

    Seems a bit excessive and wasteful to have 20 police officers show up to arrest one man! Was the donut shop closed? :-)

    I am personally frustrated with "ordinances" that dictate what I can and can not do on my own land.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    396
    my take on this,

    okay, from what I can gather by the video and the article there wasn't 20 cops that all showed up at first. I could see two officers that were obviously injured, one a policewoman who looked like she had bashed her face or nose somehow plus it appears she might have blood on her arms but maybe that is stain from the deck. The officers involved in the struggle to keep the man from entering his home called in that they were slightly injured and need assistance. Of course you are going to get every available officer on the scene when a call goes out like that.

    The officers were called to the home on to investigate a report that the man was illegally discharging a weapon in his yard. It would seem that they have reasonable suspicion enough to request the man to identify himself. Are they supposed to let him ignore that and retreat into his home? I just can't see that happening and would even say its stupid to do so. If I were an officer and I was having difficulty fighting with and gaining control of a suspect who was trying to retreat into his home and I was injured, I would hope plenty of backup would arrive ASAP.

    The woman in the house is probably pretty scared and upset at all of this as she has no idea as to why police showed up at her home and are now assaulting her husband on the front porch. The man wouldn't identify himself. Its not up to the suspected law breaker to be the one to decide if he's fairly or unfairly being accused of a crime. If the police have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, its wise for this man to identify himself when its demanded of him.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    WND??

    A story about what folks are posting on a message board??

    Anybody have a news story on this one? If not, there is no sense in assigning any credibility to this story at all.
    Last edited by eye95; 12-28-2010 at 04:40 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    WND??

    A story about what folks are posting on a message board??

    Anybody have a news story on this one? If not, there is no sense in assigning any credibility to this story at all.
    You have the video to show what is known so far. Do you really think a reporter interviewing one of the cops that showed up late is going to get it any more accurate?

    Basically how he interacted with Police is the big question and whether they or he did wrong. The "can't shoot a bow and arrow on your own property" which happened well before the police interaction is a ******** ordinance.

    I am also tired of people insinuating that WND isn't a good source of news. If you believe that it isn't, point out where they have printed falsehood! I find no unfactual information on the site and if they do get something wrong they broadcast a retraction.
    Last edited by 45acpForMe; 12-28-2010 at 04:54 PM.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The video shows nothing but the wife making an argument (a lame one, at that) after the fact. Apparently, what the man was doing was, in fact, illegal. The officers not only had RAS; they had PC. The man does not have the right to walk away from the officers and does not have the right to resist what would be a lawful arrest.

    On the woman's lame argument. "All they had to do was ask him to stop." Who knows? They may well have. However, until the encounter is over, he was lawfully detained, and could not leave. That he tried even to go into his house would be fleeing the officers. They would then have the authority to physically stop him. If he tried to resist being physically stopped from leaving, then that would be another crime.

    I'd love to see the "All they had to do was ask him to stop" argument tried for some other crime. "Yes, he was robbing a bank. All they had to do was ask him to stop." Officers do exercise discretion sometimes, for minor infractions, and just ask a law-breaker to stop. However, they do not have to--and certainly won't if the law-breaker tries to walk away from them when he has lawfully been detained.

    Sorry, but I see nothing here but bluster. This is not a news story. WND is reporting conversations on a message board and videos of a woman complaining to police (and foolishly admitting her husband's law-breaking). There is no evidence that anyone did anything illegal, except for the man shooting his bow and arrow where the law does not allow such.

    Does anybody have a real news source?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    396
    There are alot of things discussed here that don't have a "real" news source, whatever that is nowadays anyways. At least the OP provided some live video footage from the scene which is more than what some posters give when discussing different stories around here.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by MK View Post
    There are alot of things discussed here that don't have a "real" news source, whatever that is nowadays anyways. At least the OP provided some live video footage from the scene which is more than what some posters give when discussing different stories around here.
    Actually, almost every time someone cites a news source, it is a "real" one, and not the Internet equivalent of the National Enquirer wrapped in tin foil.

  8. #8
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803

    Other Sources

    Here are some other sources for those that are averse to anything WND has.

    http://www.examiner.com/la-county-li...rd-seize-house

    http://www.action3news.com/Global/story.asp?S=13727209

    http://journalstar.com/news/local/cr...4662c5ba8.html

    COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attack

    Two things that stuck out in the story to me were the local ordinance that restricts what people can do on their own land and how it was enforced. Having 20 cops show up and mull about seems to be a waste too. I am not defending how he reacted to the police. I wonder if he did show ID would they have let him go with a warning or arrest him anyway.

    The woman recording everything makes some mistakes but seeing her husband tackled on her front porch against her door seemed a bit disconcerting to her. BTW I love the Gasden flag on their wall. :-)

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The first link is not a news story. It is an advocacy piece. There is nothing wrong with advocacy pieces; they just should not be passed off as news stories. The last two are indeed news stories.

    If one wishes to report a "news" story, it is incumbent upon him (not required, just incumbent upon him for the sake of credibility) to cite actual news sources.

    BTW, juvenile name-calling is never necessary. One's points should be able to stand on their own. Name-calling just leaves the impression that the poster thinks that what he said is lacking and the only way to "fix" that is to punch it up with insults.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Anyone know if the following is true, it sounds a little fishy to me. I was was of understanding that a court order is required to seize property or to search said proptery. Either way it got way out of hand and from the videos it would seem the police used more force than was needed.


    She ultimately objects to police plans to search her home, since no part of the confrontation happened there. Officers tell her she and her daughter will have to leave.

    "We're gonna seize the house," an officer tells her.

    "Well that's fine then you guys can bring a search warrant. You can't seize my house without a search warrant," Stephanie states.

    "Yes. yes we can," said the officer. "We cannot search your house without a search warrant. We can seize your house while we're trying to get ..."

    "You can seize something I own?" Stephanie asks.
    Last edited by zack991; 12-28-2010 at 10:29 PM.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    What is being overlooked is that there is an underlying crime that is not being denied. Whether or not that will justify a search of the home, I don't know. However, where the scuffle took place is irrelevant to the legality of the search of the home. Such a search will be conducted if the police and prosecutors can convince a judge that there is evidence to be found in the underlying crime.

    Standing up to the police when you are innocent of a crime may be commendable and brave. Heck, in the minds of some, it is required. However, walking away from the cops when you know you are guilty as sin and you know they have gallons of RAS and PC, then resisting the officers is just plain stupid.

    Had the law-breaker handled the situation differently, he probably would have gotten off with a warning.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Anywhere but here.
    Posts
    523
    Quote Originally Posted by zack991 View Post
    Anyone know if the following is true, it sounds a little fishy to me. I was was of understanding that a court order is required to seize property or to search said proptery. Either way it got way out of hand and from the videos it would seem the police used more force than was needed.


    She ultimately objects to police plans to search her home, since no part of the confrontation happened there. Officers tell her she and her daughter will have to leave.

    "We're gonna seize the house," an officer tells her.

    "Well that's fine then you guys can bring a search warrant. You can't seize my house without a search warrant," Stephanie states.

    "Yes. yes we can," said the officer. "We cannot search your house without a search warrant. We can seize your house while we're trying to get ..."

    "You can seize something I own?" Stephanie asks.
    That's Bs. It's called unlawful search and seizure. They are simply lying to try to intimidate them into allowing a search.
    This site has been hijacked by leftists who attack opposition to further their own ends. Those who have never served this country and attack those who do are no longer worthy of my time or attention.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Quote Originally Posted by NRAMARINE View Post
    That's Bs. It's called unlawful search and seizure. They are simply lying to try to intimidate them into allowing a search.
    That is what i am thinking, looking to see what law if any they could uses as an excuse.
    Last edited by zack991; 12-28-2010 at 11:39 PM.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  14. #14
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803
    I am not sure of the laws in that state but I was wondering if they are allowed to seize/secure the property until the could get a judge to rule on the search warrant to preserve evidence. She already admitted that the bow and arrow (crossbow) was put away in the house before the original officers arrived.

    If the judge ruled against the warrant they would have to release it. I figure they would also want people out of the home during the seizure to avoid them destroying evidence.

  15. #15
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Speculation here on my part but Officers show up on a "target shooting in the yard with a bow and arrow" call. Person in yard has already ceased target shooting and put bow and arrow in house. The police show up and demand an ID. He doesn't have an ID with him and officers aren't satisfied with a verbal IDENTIFICATION. And then "caty bar the door"... it breaks loose.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Unknown
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by NRAMARINE View Post
    That's Bs. It's called unlawful search and seizure. They are simply lying to try to intimidate them into allowing a search.
    This is incorrect.

    Illinois versus McArthur (2001) addresses this issue of preventing someone inside a residence while awaiting a search warrant.

    The scene can be frozen to prevent the destruction or removal of evidence. This does not constitute a search and seizure because the premises are not being searched, and no evidence of the crimes are being seized. After the search warrant is issued, or if it is issued, the warrant will be executed and the premises will be searched, and the items specified on the search warrant will be seized.

    The wife was notified that the residence was being frozen to prevent any destruction or removal of evidence.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    EYE95,

    I found the snark and rudeness of the last poster's comments to be unnecessary and immature, however he does have a bit of a point. Perhaps the term "alleged law-breaker" would have been more accurate.



    Edit:

    we also don't know the seriousness of the "discharging a weapon" charge.
    If it is a misdemeanor then in some jurisdictions the report of one eye witness may not be enough RAS for a detainment.
    Last edited by END_THE_FED; 12-29-2010 at 08:10 AM.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    EYE95,

    I found the snark and rudeness of the last poster's comments to be unnecessary and immature, however he does have a bit of a point. Perhaps the term "alleged law-breaker" would have been more accurate.
    No "alleged" about it. No one denied that he broke the law. His wife just thought he should have been only warned. Not her call. The officers will make that decision.

    Apart from that, I'll leave the word "alleged" to the courts and newspapers afraid of being sued. The reality is that he was shooting his bow an arrow in his back yard and that such is against the plain language of the law.

    palerider: The trailer was, in fact, seized. There may well be an exception in the law, allowing such a seizure pending a warrant. Police may refer to this as "freezing the scene," but, at least for a while, the owner has lost the right to freely enjoy his property due to an action of the government. That's a seizure.

    In Terry, the court called the situation where a citizen feels that he is not free to go a seizure. Such a situation is also one that is temporary while an investigation is conducted, in this case to determine whether an arrest would be needed. That is often called a detention, but is actually a seizure, which may or may not be lawful.

    The seizure of the home is analogous. It may be called "freezing the scene," but it is a seizure, which may or may not be lawful.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    No "alleged" about it. No one denied that he broke the law. His wife just thought he should have been only warned. Not her call. The officers will make that decision.

    Apart from that, I'll leave the word "alleged" to the courts and newspapers afraid of being sued. The reality is that he was shooting his bow an arrow in his back yard and that such is against the plain language of the law.

    palerider: The trailer was, in fact, seized. There may well be an exception in the law, allowing such a seizure pending a warrant. Police may refer to this as "freezing the scene," but, at least for a while, the owner has lost the right to freely enjoy his property due to an action of the government. That's a seizure.

    In Terry, the court called the situation where a citizen feels that he is not free to go a seizure. Such a situation is also one that is temporary while an investigation is conducted, in this case to determine whether an arrest would be needed. That is often called a detention, but is actually a seizure, which may or may not be lawful.

    The seizure of the home is analogous. It may be called "freezing the scene," but it is a seizure, which may or may not be lawful.

    Excellent point about her trailer being seized; we must also remember that the 4th amendment not only protects our property but our persons as well. When the officers denied her entry to her home not only did they essentially seize the home, but one could also argue it was a form of detainment.


    I have not seen the video yet because I am at work and do not have sound on this computer.

    So I don't know what was said to "admit" to the "crime". I am going to assume that he either admitted to firing the crossbow or that his wife claimed he did so.

    When I read what he was apparently charged with, I don't see how firing a crossbow in and of itself is a violation. It seems that the firing of the weapon in and of its self is NOT a crime, and this may be dismissed or he may be found not guilty.

    "It shall be unlawful for any person, except as provided in this chapter, to fire or discharge, within the corporate limits, or on any property of the City of Lincoln outside of the corporate limits, any air rifle, toy pistol, toy gun, slingshot, or any other air, gas, or spring operated gun, weapon, apparatus, or instrument for the purpose of throwing or projecting missiles of any kind by any means whatsoever in such a manner as to endanger the safety of persons or property, whether the instrument is called by any name set forth above or by any other name." (my emphasis)

    It seems that the the state has the burden to prove that, not only did he fire the weapon but that he did so "in manor as to endanger the safety of persons or property".

    We don't know the "Draw Weight" of the crossbow, we don't know what was behind his target, we don't know what his target was.

    If he was using a 75lb crossbow to shoot a large target attached to a large tree and with a proper backstop then it would be hard to demonstrate that he "endanger(ed) the safety of persons or property."

    now if he was shooting it at the fence then that is clearly another story.

    If the endangerment clause wasn't there then this law would effect every kid with a "nerf gun".
    Last edited by END_THE_FED; 12-29-2010 at 08:32 AM.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Overall the video can hurt both parties. Needless to say if played in front of 12 jurors I would say the police look the worst. As for the ID issue, In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to disclose their identity to police when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place. Commonly known as "stop and identify" statutes, these laws permit police to arrest criminal suspects who refuse to identify themselves. If he gets a good attorney he can go from living in a trailer home to a large enough property he can shoot all he wants. If he brings a civil lawsuit I hope he brings the nosy neighbor into it as well.

    Currently the following states have stop and identify laws: AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, IL, KS, LA, MO, MT, NE, NH, NM, NV, NY, ND, RI, UT, VT, WI
    Last edited by zack991; 12-29-2010 at 11:48 AM.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  21. #21
    Regular Member SGB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Tallahassee, Florida, USA
    Posts
    50
    The LE seems to be in CYA mode. However if they have an actual complainant to the incident rather than an anonymous caller then they have the PC to require that the subject verbally identify himself. If he refused to do so then he brought what followed upon himself. If it turns out the complaint was made anonymously then the PD is ass deep in the poo as they had neither PC or even RS to substantiate their actions.
    Last edited by SGB; 12-29-2010 at 04:10 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by zack991 View Post
    Overall the video can hurt both parties. Needless to say if played in front of 12 jurors I would say the police look the worst. As for the ID issue, In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to disclose their identity to police when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place. Commonly known as "stop and identify" statutes, these laws permit police to arrest criminal suspects who refuse to identify themselves. If he gets a good attorney he can go from living in a trailer home to a large enough property he can shoot all he wants. If he brings a civil lawsuit I hope he brings the nosy neighbor into it as well.

    Currently the following states have stop and identify laws: AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, IL, KS, LA, MO, MT, NE, NH, NM, NV, NY, ND, RI, UT, VT, WI

    Could you cite the statue for MO, please. To my knowledge the only thing in our State Constitution says that the LE of Kansas City and St. Louis can stop and ask you to identify.



    Missouri Revised Statutes
    Chapter 84
    Police Departments in St. Louis and Kansas City
    Section 84.710

    August 28, 2010




    Police force--officers of state--powers to arrest (Kansas City).
    84.710. 1. The members of the police force appointed in pursuance hereof are hereby declared to be officers of the state of Missouri and of the city for which such commissioners are appointed.

    2. They shall have power within the city or on public property of the city beyond the corporate limits thereof to arrest, on view, any person they see violating or whom they have reason to suspect of having violated any law of the state or ordinance of the city. They shall have power to arrest and hold, without warrant, for a period of time not exceeding twenty-four hours, persons found within the city or on public property of the city beyond the corporate limits thereof charged with having committed felonies in other states, and who are reported to be fugitives from justice. They shall also have the power to stop any person abroad whenever there is reasonable ground to suspect that he is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime and demand of him his name, address, business abroad and whither he is going. When stopping or detaining a suspect, they may search him for a dangerous weapon whenever they have reasonable ground to believe they are in danger from the possession of such dangerous weapon by the suspect. No unreasonable force shall be used in detaining or arresting any person, but such force as may be necessary may be used when there is no other apparent means of making an arrest or preventing an escape and only after the peace officer has made every reasonable effort to advise the person that he is the peace officer engaged in making arrest. 3. Any person who has been arrested without a warrant may be released, without being taken before a judge, by the officer in charge of the police station whenever the officer is satisfied that there is no ground for making complaint against him, or when the person was arrested for a misdemeanor and will sign a satisfactory agreement to appear in court at the time designated.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348
    Police officers are such kind people.
    Last edited by GLOCK21GB; 12-30-2010 at 12:40 PM.
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Anywhere but here.
    Posts
    523
    Quote Originally Posted by palerider116 View Post
    This is incorrect.

    Illinois versus McArthur (2001) addresses this issue of preventing someone inside a residence while awaiting a search warrant.

    The scene can be frozen to prevent the destruction or removal of evidence. This does not constitute a search and seizure because the premises are not being searched, and no evidence of the crimes are being seized. After the search warrant is issued, or if it is issued, the warrant will be executed and the premises will be searched, and the items specified on the search warrant will be seized.

    The wife was notified that the residence was being frozen to prevent any destruction or removal of evidence.
    However the poli8ce have "seized the property, as the OWNERS of said property are not free to come and go as they choose without being charged, or even having a warrant. If this went to court I believe it would be ruled a 4th ammendment violation.
    This site has been hijacked by leftists who attack opposition to further their own ends. Those who have never served this country and attack those who do are no longer worthy of my time or attention.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Anywhere but here.
    Posts
    523
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    No "alleged" about it. No one denied that he broke the law. His wife just thought he should have been only warned. Not her call. The officers will make that decision.

    Apart from that, I'll leave the word "alleged" to the courts and newspapers afraid of being sued. The reality is that he was shooting his bow an arrow in his back yard and that such is against the plain language of the law.

    palerider: The trailer was, in fact, seized. There may well be an exception in the law, allowing such a seizure pending a warrant. Police may refer to this as "freezing the scene," but, at least for a while, the owner has lost the right to freely enjoy his property due to an action of the government. That's a seizure.

    In Terry, the court called the situation where a citizen feels that he is not free to go a seizure. Such a situation is also one that is temporary while an investigation is conducted, in this case to determine whether an arrest would be needed. That is often called a detention, but is actually a seizure, which may or may not be lawful.

    The seizure of the home is analogous. It may be called "freezing the scene," but it is a seizure, which may or may not be lawful.
    +1
    This site has been hijacked by leftists who attack opposition to further their own ends. Those who have never served this country and attack those who do are no longer worthy of my time or attention.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •