Unbelievable police story

[Duality]

Give me a break, they went in and talked to the children first, it clearly says so. You'd have to be pretty fucking paranoid to think somebody is capable of breaking into a house and committing a murder, or staying in there very long for a robbery and not waking one of the four children. If they actually thought something was going on, they should have kept knocking and ringing the doorbell until someone answered, none of these situations provide the "just cause" to enter the home.

What's next, going up into their room and checking their pulse to make sure they haven't had a heart attack? It's just a perfect example of the trend that police are willing to step over the line and abuse their powers, while citizens are having their civil rights violated.

the way you speak of it the police are trying to implement a calculated effort to rob people of their rights. i think that is quite the hyperbole. you honestly think these cops saw all these things at this man's house, and more or less thought "hell we can do what we want let's march on in"? now these police obviously didn't think this one through too much otherwise i'm sure they would have avoided this entire situation all together had they factored in the potential reprecussions of just trying to help this guy out. however in their "absent mindedness" they decided to put forth a helpful gesture in just simply informing this man of the mistakes he had made. i am agreeing with you that in a legal regard what they did was "wrong" and if all cops decided to come in as they pleased it would be a real problem. but these men were not abusing their power, simply using it to look out for a citizen.

 

[tim290280]

the way you speak of it the police are trying to implement a calculated effort to rob people of their rights.

Erosion of rights is more the case. Push the limits, then push some more, all of a sudden it becomes acceptable. Good cop would have knocked on the door until someone answered.

There is no law against leaving your house and car unlocked, nor leaving the TV on. Pretty sure that cops have to be invited into your home or have suspicion of a crime in progress before they can enter, BY LAW!

 

[Tech]

I challenge you all to leave your garage/front door open for one night. If your entire family is murdered or your house is burglarized, you will have proven your point that open garages and unlocked doors means something bad will happen 100% of the time.


edit: oh yeah, make sure you leave your television on. that part is crucial.

 

[frezzy]

^no thanks.

 

[Ironslave]

I challenge you all to leave your garage/front door open for one night. If your entire family is murdered or your house is burglarized, you will have proven your point that open garages and unlocked doors means something bad will happen 100% of the time.


edit: oh yeah, make sure you leave your television on. that part is crucial.

I'll actually do this tonight... and put my welcome mat outside the door, instead of inside the porch.


Here's hoping I am alive tomorrow

 

[Tech]

I'll actually do this tonight... and put my welcome mat outside the door, instead of inside the porch.


Here's hoping I am alive tomorrow

R.I.P.

:carduindisguise

 

[frezzy]

don't forget to leave your car keys in the ignition

 

[Tech]

don't forget to leave your car keys in the ignition

 

[Ironslave]

don't forget to leave your car keys in the ignition

... K, they are in... and im not kidding.

 

[TJ]

Hm, that's kind of a tough one. Since the door to his home was open I think it's actually justified. The "Good Faith Clause" or whatever it's called would definately come into play for something like this.

 

[Ironslave]

Hm, that's kind of a tough one. Since the door to his home was open I think it's actually justified. The "Good Faith Clause" or whatever it's called would definately come into play for something like this.

Door "open", or unlocked? Im willing to bet the later, since they knocked.

 

[Joeb23]

I think all make good points and in a technical standpoint of the law the police did break the law, but I do feel that Duality has fair point in that they were clearly doing this out of good hearted concern for the person and not intentionally abusing their power as Line made it seem. The fact of the matter is this, suppose you or i did something totally illegal but it was clear that it was in the goodness of our heart. Do you think that we would be let off the hook? Or that our government would enforce all applicable punishments to suit our crimes. Answer this and then ask yourself our police officers any different?

Hope this helps some...

 

[Tech]

I found this comment on some news site and thought it was pretty good...


It is a violation of one's rights to have the police enter one's home without probable cause that a crime is being committed. Having your door unlocked and your keys in your (presumably not running) car is not cause to believe that a crime is being committed. If people choose to be careless with their property, that is their choice. The police should be patrolling for real crimes instead of feeling the need to teach lessons to presumably (and it's always presumably, ideally) law abiding citizens.

 

[Duality]

Door "open", or unlocked? Im willing to bet the later, since they knocked.

you can easily knock on a door that is ajar. you didn't address the main issue of wolf's post. the good faith clause that would make the police action legally justifiable.


i've never heard of this before, but having looked into it it would be a legitimate legal response to all this.

 

[Duality]

I found this comment on some news site and thought it was pretty good...


It is a violation of one's rights to have the police enter one's home without probable cause that a crime is being committed. Having your door unlocked and your keys in your (presumably not running) car is not cause to believe that a crime is being committed. If people choose to be careless with their property, that is their choice. The police should be patrolling for real crimes instead of feeling the need to teach lessons to presumably (and it's always presumably, ideally) law abiding citizens.

this does not sound professional in the least bit. we are going to need a real legal excerpt to take something like this seriously. it almost sounds as if you yourself typed this :wutyousay:

 

[Ironslave]

Holy shit, how hard is it to get this.

They could have kept knocking and ringing the doorbell until someone answered, beep the fucking car horn, anything, but they did not have the right to go into the house, and certainly not the bedroom.

 

[Tech]

this does not sound professional in the least bit. we are going to need a real legal excerpt to take something like this seriously. it almost sounds as if you yourself typed this :wutyousay:

it was a comment from a person on a news website.

a news website posts the article. people submit their reactions via comments.

http://ww2.startribune.com/user_com...et_comments&asset_id=20600739&section=/nation

I was just skimming through. all the comments are pretty split like in this thread.

 

[Duality]

^ gotcha. it doesn't say anything that you yourself haven't already said though

Holy shit, how hard is it to get this.

They could have kept knocking and ringing the doorbell until someone answered, beep the fucking car horn, anything, but they did not have the right to go into the house, and certainly not the bedroom.

why is that the "police free zone" in all houses? it shouldn't matter where they went while in the house, just the fact that they entered.

again you speak in generalities. no my friend it is NOT hard to understand your very broad and unspecific statement. why must everything always be black or white in your viewpoint with no regard for circumstance or motive?

Originally posted by Wolf
Hm, that's kind of a tough one. Since the door to his home was open I think it's actually justified. The "Good Faith Clause" or whatever it's called would definately come into play for something like this.

i would like to know what you think of this. and could it not easily be legally interpreted to justify that the police were looking out for a citizen?

 

[Tech]

you can easily knock on a door that is ajar. you didn't address the main issue of wolf's post. the good faith clause that would make the police action legally justifiable.


i've never heard of this before, but having looked into it it would be a legitimate legal response to all this.

I'm pretty sure the "good faith" rule only applys to situations in which officers find evidence illegally. like if they were to find drugs or dead bodies while they were illegally performing a search.

As with most legal rules, there are a number of exceptions. In United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974), the Supreme Court ruled that grand juries may use allegedly illegally obtained evidence in questioning witnesses because, to hold otherwise, would interfere with grand jury independence and the place to contest the illegal search is after the accused is charged. In United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), the Supreme Court applied the "good faith" rule and held that evidence seized by officers objectively and in good faith relying on a warrant later found to be defective was still admissible. The evidence would still be excluded if an officer dishonestly or recklessly prepares an affidavit forming the basis at the warrant, if the issuing magistrate abandons his neutrality, or if the warrant lacks sufficient particularity. The Leon case applies only to search warrants. It remains unclear whether the "good faith" exception applies to warrantless seizures in other contexts.

 

[Hypocrisy86]

Hello officers would you care for some apple pie?