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.

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.

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.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

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.

MK said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Other Sources

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

http://www.examiner.com/la-county-l...laying-with-crossbow-his-backyard-seize-house

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

http://journalstar.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_22b5c48a-baf3-56de-a7ed-5254662c5ba8.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.

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.

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.

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.

zack991 said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's Bs. It's called unlawful search and seizure. They are simply lying to try to intimidate them into allowing a search.

NRAMARINE said:

That's Bs. It's called unlawful search and seizure. They are simply lying to try to intimidate them into allowing a search.

Click to expand...

That is what i am thinking, looking to see what law if any they could uses as an excuse.

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.

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.

NRAMARINE said:

That's Bs. It's called unlawful search and seizure. They are simply lying to try to intimidate them into allowing a search.

Click to expand...

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.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Wow you are worse than some mainstream news station.

You admit yourself that nobody has enough facts to really judge the situation yet you refer to this guy as "the lawbreaker"....

You would think a person admitting to a lack of information wouldnt be so ignorantly biased just because he sees an opportunity to argue.

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.

END_THE_FED said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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".