The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old May 21, 2013, 07:22 AM   #1
Silver00LT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 286
More information requested on a recent CA arrest video that's gone viral

Video Clip
News Clipping

What happened prior to the camera being turned on? From the actions shown in the video I am at a loss for words. I received this video in a text from a buddy of mine. Since this forum has a high standard of morals on posts I know I can at least get useful information here without having to sort through stuff like on YouTube.

Police officers state "domestic violence" yet they state it was just an argument. So hoping someone local to that area has paper clippings or a better understanding of the laws there. We all know how viral YouTube videos can be mislead and wrong information sent.

Just trying to get a grasp of the WHOLE picture. Because I know them just hearing her is not enough. They need to see that she has not been beaten or being held against her will out of fear.

A lot of missing information....the couple could have a list of priors. How long were they waiting prior to the camera being turned on. This is why I wish police officers had cameras on them as well.
__________________
My YouTube MOLON LABE
Training pays off...so keep active with your firearm. It could save your life one day.
Silver00LT is offline  
Old May 21, 2013, 10:25 AM   #2
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 727
Wow. I guess that PD is going to make someone's payday. Especially since the woman was tazed first (assuming an allegation of DV by the husband). And kicking their door down to conduct a warrentless search. Just.....wow.
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old May 21, 2013, 11:15 AM   #3
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 4,030
The OP is asking for information about what took place, and showing some healthy skepticism about what's behind the events shown in the video. Let's not jump to conclusions, and let's not use this as an excuse to vent about police states, or otherwise indulge in cop-bashing.

I did a quick Google search and found no reports on this from legit news sources, so I too am skeptical at this point, and hoping for some actual facts.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old May 21, 2013, 11:15 AM   #4
godot
Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2004
Posts: 84
I don't understand why these people were under any obligation to allow police to enter their home or be compelled to leave it. From what I see a million dollars and at least a couple of firings. Disgraceful.

BTW here is the San Fransisco Huffington Post link on the same event

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3282868.html

Last edited by godot; May 21, 2013 at 11:26 AM.
godot is offline  
Old May 21, 2013, 12:25 PM   #5
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Based on the little information available it does highlight an interesting point of intersection between law enforcement and peoples rights. AFAIK, a DV(but does disturbance=violence?) call does meet the standard of exigent circumstances to enter a private property. However, in theory, should a third party's(person who calls it in outside of the home) perception of commotion really over ride the occupants rights? Should LE be required to note some sort of corroborating evidence before exigence is established?
sigcurious is offline  
Old May 21, 2013, 12:45 PM   #6
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Here's a follow-up video featuring an interview with the man inside the home:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW_YMZ-gkH8
csmsss is offline  
Old May 21, 2013, 12:50 PM   #7
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
In watching the videos, it appears to me that once the officers made visual and verbal contact with the adults in the home, all claims to exigent circumstances justifying warrantless entry fall by the wayside. I see no immediate risk to the lives of anyone inside the home, and they certainly had time to obtain a warrant.

I think what we're seeing is the officers in this case believed that a DV call necessitates entry into the house regardless of any other circumstances they might encounter at the scene.

And yeah - tasering the woman appears to have been done without any sort of justification whatsoever. You can't taser people just to shut them up.
csmsss is offline  
Old May 21, 2013, 12:53 PM   #8
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,639
As the OP said, we have no idea what happened before the beginning of the video. Plenty of folks have led the police on chases, then run into a crowd screaming "police brutality" and "I did nothing!" while the police cuff them. All the crowd sees is what's in front of them, which is a "victim" being "abused" by the police.

The same goes here. Let's refrain from general commentary on the situation until we have more information.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old May 21, 2013, 12:55 PM   #9
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
Based on the little information available it does highlight an interesting point of intersection between law enforcement and peoples rights. AFAIK, a DV(but does disturbance=violence?) call does meet the standard of exigent circumstances to enter a private property. However, in theory, should a third party's(person who calls it in outside of the home) perception of commotion really over ride the occupants rights? Should LE be required to note some sort of corroborating evidence before exigence is established?
I think that "exigent circumstance" needs/must be re-evaluated on a continuing basis. If they had responded to a DV call and no one responded, then I think you can make a compelling case that exigent circumstances existed that justified making entry without permission or warrant. But once they made contact with the couple inside, I can see no justification for claiming that there was an imminent risk of harm to anyone inside. Best I can tell, they went in because they wanted to go in and wanted to assert situational control and induce compliance. In situations like this, law enforcement and the protection of citizens' rights tend to take a back seat to taking charge of the scene and making those on the scene do what you want them to do.
csmsss is offline  
Old May 21, 2013, 01:33 PM   #10
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,289
Quote:
I don't understand why these people were under any obligation to allow police to enter their home or be compelled to leave it. From what I see a million dollars and at least a couple of firings. Disgraceful.

BTW here is the San Fransisco Huffington Post link on the same event
Think Cleveland. Just because two people say they were fighting doesn't mean they aren't lying, and that others are the ones being abused, but are behind the door.

Taking all this with an extreme grain of salt.

In the real world, why not come out and talk to the officer?
zincwarrior is offline  
Old May 21, 2013, 01:39 PM   #11
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
Think Cleveland. Just because two people say they were fighting doesn't mean they aren't lying, and that others are the ones being abused, but are behind the door.
We can each imagine any number of scary scenarios. But cops are required to base their judgements on their observations and the law, not their imaginations.

Quote:
In the real world, why not come out and talk to the officer?
Yeah, fine. But the point is they're not required to. I don't know about you, but I have a real problem with this assumption that we as citizens are supposed to yield our rights arbitrarily just because it will make police officers happier. They are our servants, not the other way around.
csmsss is offline  
Old May 21, 2013, 01:49 PM   #12
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,289
Quote:
Quote:
Think Cleveland. Just because two people say they were fighting doesn't mean they aren't lying, and that others are the ones being abused, but are behind the door.

We can each imagine any number of scary scenarios. But cops are required to base their judgements on their observations and the law, not their imaginations.
Not getting your point. Thats not a scary scenario. Thats happened. Its also why its standard policy in many jurisidctions to look at all parties.

Quote:
Quote:
In the real world, why not come out and talk to the officer?

Yeah, fine. But the point is they're not required to. I don't know about you, but I have a real problem with this assumption that we as citizens are supposed to yield our rights arbitrarily just because it will make police officers happier. They are our servants, not the other way around.
You're under the presumption that something is going on. You have the right to remain silent. You don't have the right to not be questioned or be lawfully detained incident to an investigation.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old May 21, 2013, 02:12 PM   #13
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
Not getting your point. Thats not a scary scenario. Thats happened. Its also why its standard policy in many jurisidctions to look at all parties.
It's still an imaginary scenario that does not present justification to violate an individual(s) fourth amendment protections. Neither does "standard policy" - there are all manner of PD standard policies that are very likely extra-constitutional.

Quote:
You're under the presumption that something is going on.
Who holds this presumption and what is its basis? Is a simple dispatcher's call (which can very easily be grossly wrong/mistaken) enough to strip the rights of any citizens you may encounter? I'd argue no.

Quote:
You have the right to remain silent. You don't have the right to not be questioned
Actually, I DO have the right not to be questioned without an attorney present.

Quote:
or be lawfully detained incident to an investigation.
And I would STRONGLY argue against the legality of the entry made to compel the detention as well as the legality of the detention itself. What is the probable cause here?
csmsss is offline  
Old May 21, 2013, 02:21 PM   #14
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,920
So little actual information and so much wild speculation and guess work.

Yes, cops can have duties to act in exigent circumstances, and while the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, there's a lot of case law about what and when something is reasonable.

And yes, in many cases a citizen can tell a cop to "take a hike."

Which applies here? We have no idea, and there's insufficient information upon which to base a sound conclusion.

I'll close this for now, and staff will consider whether to re-open it.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

Last edited by Frank Ettin; May 21, 2013 at 02:28 PM. Reason: correct typo
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old May 21, 2013, 05:14 PM   #15
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,322
I would only consider reopening, when and/or if we have more information... More being enough to form some kind of opinion.

Right now, there is very little (info) to base any opinion on.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09476 seconds with 7 queries