Current Events > Police show up to black man's house, he excercises his legal rights and get shot

(+) Yeah! (+)

darkprince45 posted...

Im done posting

Site wide hopefully.

---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Site wide hopefully.

Who u

---

darkprince45 posted...

Who u

Didn't even stop posting in this topic LAWL

Leave it to a cop to show no signs of integrity.

---

solosnake posted...

American cops

America
Americans are to lazy to do anything about it. Too lazy and too unorganized.


---

You can call it self-defense all you want but he chose to make it a firefight. Running to his truck like that and then popping out from behind cover.

The cops are unequivocally wrong for bean bagging him but he definitely started something he shouldn't have.

Don't shoot at cops, basically.

---

MutantJohn posted...

You can call it self-defense all you want but he chose to make it a firefight. Running to his truck like that and then popping out from behind cover.

The cops are unequivocally wrong for bean bagging him but he definitely started something he shouldn't have.

Don't shoot at cops, basically.

Well now Bobby, that depends. Should we all just lay down and fucking die?


---

MutantJohn posted...

You can call it self-defense all you want but he chose to make it a firefight. Running to his truck like that and then popping out from behind cover.

The cops are unequivocally wrong for bean bagging him but he definitely started something he shouldn't have.

Don't shoot at cops, basically.

Even when they just shot at you? He didn't start it they did.

MutantJohn posted...

The cops are unequivocally wrong for bean bagging him but he definitely started something he shouldn't have.

So you're suggesting if we shot beanbags at cops, then it would be the cops who "started it" when they inevitably give us lead poisoning?

---

I can't tell if it's a willful misinterpretation or just a plain lack of knowledge that compels people to say that you have the "right to defend yourself" against police attempting to make a lawful arrest.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

I can't tell if it's a willful misinterpretation or just a plain lack of knowledge that compels people to say that you have the "right to defend yourself" against police attempting to make a lawful arrest.

This was proven already to be unlawful nor they did put the man under arrest.

WingsOfGood posted...

This was proven already to be unlawful

It was?

WingsOfGood posted...

nor they did put the man under arrest.

how could they? He kept his distance screaming and shouting. Then charged. Then pulled out a gun.


---

WingsOfGood posted...

This was proven already to be unlawful

I doubt that.

WingsOfGood posted...

nor they did put the man under arrest.

They kinda have to approach him to put him under arrest.

---

WingsOfGood posted...

https://casetext.com/analysis/search-and-seizure-terry-stop-what-constitutes-a-seizure

United States v. Johnson, 620 F.3d 685 (6th Cir. 2010)
The police received a call that there were suspicious people at an apartment complex. The police went to the scene and saw the defendant, carrying a bag, walking calmly from the yard of the complex to a car. The police ordered him to stop; he kept walking. The police ordered him to stop again; he kept walking until he arrived at the car, opened the passenger door, threw the bag in and then stood still at the open door. The Sixth Circuit held that when he finally stopped, he had been seized. Because there was no articulable suspicion to justify the seizure, the resulting frisk and search was unconstitutional and evidence should have been suppressed.

United States v. Fox, 600 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 2010)
The defendants wife pulled up to her house and was approached by a police officer who was conducting surveillance of the house (in particular, the defendant). The officer entered the wifes car and directed her to drive across the street to a parking lot. She was questioned and then asked for consent to search her car. Ultimately, she consented to a search of the house. The Tenth Circuit held that the wife was detained; there was no basis for the detention and the consent to search was the product of this detention. The gun found in the house, therefore, should have been suppressed at the defendants trial.

United States v. Johnson, 427 F.3d 1053 (7th Cir. 2005)
The police received an anonymous tip that the defendant was a cocaine dealer and that he lived at a particular location. The police went to the defendants house and when the defendants girlfriend came out, she was asked by the police to knock on the door. She did so and the defendant came to the door. The police talked to him briefly, after which he turned around and started walking away, back down the hall. The police pulled out a gun, pointed it at the ground, and cautioned that this was a matter of officer safety. The defendant stopped in his tracks and returned to the door. He then consented to a search. The Seventh Circuit held, (1) this did amount to a detention; (2) there was no articulable suspicion supporting the detention; (3) the consent to search was a fruit of the unlawful detention.

United States v. Hall, 978 F.2d 616 (10th Cir. 1992)
Based on a tip, the police met the defendant when her train arrived at the station. She was asked for consent to search her luggage which she refused. She had purchased a one-way ticket from Flagstaff to Harrisburg, Pa. She appeared nervous when questioned. On this basis, the officers seized the luggage, but allowed the defendant to leave. This was unlawful. In order to seize the luggage, the police must have the same level of information reasonable suspicion as is required to seize the person. United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983). The facts in this case did not amount to reasonable suspicion.

Seeing a pattern here. Sounds like the officers going on a tip to detain someone are breaking the law based on case law.

darkprince45 posted...

he was called In a reckless driver, police saw him, go in his house.

probable cause for a crime is established

reckless driving

I'm curious what this was supposed to accomplish. They can't even prove reckless driving at that point. What, were they going to ask him? How was this intended to play out?

---

Can't wait to see the alt-right pro-gun nutjobs have to choose between defending a black man or defending the police

---

eston posted...

I'm curious what this was supposed to accomplish. They can't even prove reckless driving at that point. What, were they going to ask him? How was this intended to play out?

It was actually claimed as drunk driving, which would be fairly easy to prove with a breathalyzer. He could have just taken the test. Instead, he got belligerent and combative.

Just cooperate with the police. Please.

---

are you comparing an anonymous tip a person reporting a drunk/reckless driver and following him???? OP just stop

---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Can't wait to see the alt-right pro-gun nutjobs have to choose between defending a black man or defending the police

The topic title is deceptive, as usual. He wasn't just 'exercising his rights,' he actually shot his gun at officers. You absolutely do not have the right to resist arrest or attempt to kill officers who are attempting to detain you.

---

darkprince45 posted...

are you comparing an anonymous tip a person reporting a drunk/reckless driver and following him???? OP just stop

Did you not know this was an anonymous tip?

eston posted...

I'm curious what this was supposed to accomplish. They can't even prove reckless driving at that point. What, were they going to ask him? How was this intended to play out?

This question was avoided many times in this topic already.

WingsOfGood posted...

Did you not know this was an anonymous tip?

Its hard to be anonymous when he follow the drunk driver home and waited for police. Regardless. This is not the same comparison as somebody saying I think this random guy is a drug dealer. This person is actually a witness to a crime.

why are you like. Like you know youre wrong

---

the 2nd amendment for Black people is a Catch 22. exercise it and you just might catch 22.
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

the 2nd amendment for Black people is a Catch 22. exercise it and you just might catch 22.

its not
2a
if
youre lawfully detained
and you
decide
to shoot a gun
its called
resisting with a firearm

---

darkprince45 posted...

Its hard to be anonymous when he follow the drunk driver home and waited for police. Regardless.

Maybe I'm missing something, but the words of just one guy don't sound like probable cause to me.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

The topic title is deceptive, as usual. He wasn't just 'exercising his rights,' he actually shot his gun at officers. You absolutely do not have the right to resist arrest or attempt to kill officers who are attempting to detain you.

I mean it kinda sorta sounds like he was defending himself after they shot first

---

Its crazy to me that were 200 posts in the and the same posters still dont understand that gun laws and property laws dont apply if the police have probable cause to investigate you and are doing an investigation on you!

You cant just get off a crime because well Im going to shoot you or Im in my yard take that coppers

how old are you guys

---

darkprince45 posted...

Its hard to be anonymous when he follow the drunk driver home and waited for police. Regardless. This is not the same comparison as somebody saying I think this random guy is a drug dealer. This person is actually a witness to a crime.

why are you like. Like you know youre wrong

You also did not know he was not drunk?

And wtf, some random Karen follows a guy home and you 100% trust them being in good faith.

If anything, cops should arrest weirdo following people home. That is creepy and dangerous behavior.

But in the video there is no evidence of this. The officer said "we been getting calls about you."
They did not say this witness is here and followed you.

So it is indeed a phonecall is all they basing it on.
Furthermore, case law shows these witnesses making shit up like saying dude is a drug dealer doesn't give the cops right to detain and courts rule it UNLAWFUL.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Maybe I'm missing something, but the words of just one guy don't sound like probable cause to me.

You are correct but then how else can he defend the cops?

He can't so he will die on this hill.

WingsOfGood posted...

You also did not know he was not drunk?

Thats kind of the point of them starting the investigation. But he decided to be belligerent. Believe it or not. People take drunk drivers seriously

---

eston posted...

I mean it kinda sorta sounds like he was defending himself after they shot first

He approached them against lawful orders. They used a beanbag round to try to neutralize him. He pulled his gun and started shooting bullets. They shot back.

He did not act within his legal rights. You do not have the right to threaten officers, disobey lawful orders, or shoot deadly rounds at the police.

The police have the legal authority to do what they did. The suspect did not have the legal right to defy and resist their lawful attempts to bring him into custody.

---

WingsOfGood posted...

Furthermore, case law shows these witnesses making s*** up like saying dude is a drug dealer doesn't give the cops right to detain and courts rule it UNLAWFUL.

This is not the same I already explained this to you in my last post. If this was true, then police calls would never happen. Because guess what? People really dont call the police on themselves

---

darkprince45 posted...

Thats kind of the point of them starting the investigation. But he decided to be belligerent. Believe it or not. People take drunk drivers seriously

So why did a looney follow him home if he was not a drunk driver?
Kinda starts to seem this "witness" might be mentally ill.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

He approached them against lawful orders. They used a beanbag round to try to neutralize him. He pulled his gun and started shooting bullets. They shot back.

He did not act within his legal rights. You do not have the right to threaten officers, disobey lawful orders, or shoot deadly rounds at the police.

They have the legal authority to do what they did. The suspect did not have the legal right to defy and resist their lawful attempts to bring him into custody.

this is literally it. Like it does not go past this. This is what the legal paperwork says, this is what the ruling will be. I just cant comprehend why its so hard for people to grasp this. Topic should be locked with this response

---

darkprince45 posted...

This is not the same I already explained this to you in my last post. If this was true, then police calls would never happen. Because guess what? People really dont call the police on themselves

Explained? You just tried to brush it off saying I know nothing.

Again, several case law examples, court deems cops detaining person due to tips as unlawful.

WingsOfGood posted...

So why did a looney follow him home if he was not a drunk driver?
Kinda starts to seem this "witness" might be mentally ill.

Dude youre just strawmanning now holy fuck. Its not a crime to do that. Its NOT advised to do this. But you are well within your legal right to do it. Ive responded to many calls where a person is following a drunk driver. That shit kills, a lot

---

I still need an answer for why one guy claiming someone is driving reckless counts as probable cause.

---

https://casetext.com/analysis/search-and-seizure-terry-stop-what-constitutes-a-seizure

United States v. Johnson, 620 F.3d 685 (6th Cir. 2010)
The police received a call that there were suspicious people at an apartment complex. The police went to the scene and saw the defendant, carrying a bag, walking calmly from the yard of the complex to a car. The police ordered him to stop; he kept walking. The police ordered him to stop again; he kept walking until he arrived at the car, opened the passenger door, threw the bag in and then stood still at the open door. The Sixth Circuit held that when he finally stopped, he had been seized. Because there was no articulable suspicion to justify the seizure, the resulting frisk and search was unconstitutional and evidence should have been suppressed.

United States v. Fox, 600 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 2010)
The defendants wife pulled up to her house and was approached by a police officer who was conducting surveillance of the house (in particular, the defendant). The officer entered the wifes car and directed her to drive across the street to a parking lot. She was questioned and then asked for consent to search her car. Ultimately, she consented to a search of the house. The Tenth Circuit held that the wife was detained; there was no basis for the detention and the consent to search was the product of this detention. The gun found in the house, therefore, should have been suppressed at the defendants trial.

United States v. Johnson, 427 F.3d 1053 (7th Cir. 2005)
The police received an anonymous tip that the defendant was a cocaine dealer and that he lived at a particular location. The police went to the defendants house and when the defendants girlfriend came out, she was asked by the police to knock on the door. She did so and the defendant came to the door. The police talked to him briefly, after which he turned around and started walking away, back down the hall. The police pulled out a gun, pointed it at the ground, and cautioned that this was a matter of officer safety. The defendant stopped in his tracks and returned to the door. He then consented to a search. The Seventh Circuit held, (1) this did amount to a detention; (2) there was no articulable suspicion supporting the detention; (3) the consent to search was a fruit of the unlawful detention.

United States v. Hall, 978 F.2d 616 (10th Cir. 1992)
Based on a tip, the police met the defendant when her train arrived at the station. She was asked for consent to search her luggage which she refused. She had purchased a one-way ticket from Flagstaff to Harrisburg, Pa. She appeared nervous when questioned. On this basis, the officers seized the luggage, but allowed the defendant to leave. This was unlawful. In order to seize the luggage, the police must have the same level of information reasonable suspicion as is required to seize the person. United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983). The facts in this case did not amount to reasonable suspicion.

WingsOfGood posted...

Explained? You just tried to brush it off saying I know nothing.

Again, several case law examples, court deems cops detaining person due to tips as unlawful.

you listed 4, out of 100 million stops a year. And theyre not related. You cant seem to get the difference between seeing and following a drunk driver and someone randomly saying a person is a drug dealer


---

You first case is completely irrelevant as well. The officer did an illegal search on a vehicle based on RS. Like its not even in the same field as this.

no search was conducted here at all. Omg its like pulling hair out

---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

I still need an answer for why one guy claiming someone is driving reckless counts as probable cause.

It's a witness. The police can investigate whether or not the man is drunk first, then if so, they can determine whether or not he had been driving. Drunk driving is a serious offense. It is worth investigating.

---

WingsOfGood posted...

This was proven already to be unlawful nor they did put the man under arrest.

It's gob, don't bother.

---

darkprince45 posted...

Dude youre just strawmanning now holy fuck. Its not a crime to do that. Its NOT advised to do this. But you are well within your legal right to do it. Ive responded to many calls where a person is following a drunk driver. That shit kills, a lot

Yet we know the man was not drunk.

Do you deny that people are racist and love to see black people harassed and this dude might have enjoyed watching cops harass and innocent black man?

Drivers are also petty and for all you know the man just cut him off and he wanted to ruin his day by lying to the cops.
And you 100% believe it and go to the house to harass an innocent man?

Gobstoppers12 posted...

It's a witness. The police can investigate whether or not the man is drunk first, then if so, they can determine whether or not he had been driving. Drunk driving is a serious offense. It is worth investigating.

Sure, but how does that translate into now being allowed to shoot the guy with a bean bag?

---

WingsOfGood posted...

Yet we know the man was not drunk.

We do? And the fact is whether yes or not. The police DIDNT know that had but were under suspicion that he was. Hence, a legal investigation. Hence, why its lawful.
Now youre just going in left field with racist people blah blah. Im done man. You just keep adding questions to everything despite me answering it

---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Sure, but how does that translate into now being allowed to shoot the guy with a bean bag?

use of force model

---

darkprince45 posted...

We do? And the fact is whether hes drunk or not. The police DIDNT know that but were under suspicion that he was. Hence, a legal investigation. Hence, why its lawful.
Now youre just going in left field with racist people blah blah. Im done man. You just keep adding questions to everything despite me answering it

It was not lawful and you are not the arbiter of what is or is not.
The officers in those cases thought they were too and that caused them to BREAK the law.

Without having read much, I am going to come in for the following legal drive-by regarding post 240:

One, those cases are from several different circuits, which are not a unified jurisdiction and do have differences in case law and interpretation. They also do not account for individual state differences re: Fourth Amendment analogues.

Second, Fourth Amendment cases are so heavily fact dependent that, outside of broad principles of law set forth, they are not of much, if any, individual value as "binding precedent," especially when issued from an intermediate appellate court.

---