|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 21, 2013, 07:22 AM | #1 |
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. |
May 21, 2013, 10:25 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
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.
|
May 21, 2013, 11:15 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
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.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
May 21, 2013, 11:15 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 28, 2004
Posts: 105
|
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. |
May 21, 2013, 12:25 PM | #5 |
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?
|
May 21, 2013, 12:45 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Here's a follow-up video featuring an interview with the man inside the home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW_YMZ-gkH8 |
May 21, 2013, 12:50 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
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. |
May 21, 2013, 12:53 PM | #8 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
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 |
May 21, 2013, 12:55 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
|
|
May 21, 2013, 01:33 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
Quote:
Taking all this with an extreme grain of salt. In the real world, why not come out and talk to the officer? |
|
May 21, 2013, 01:39 PM | #11 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
May 21, 2013, 01:49 PM | #12 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
May 21, 2013, 02:12 PM | #13 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
May 21, 2013, 02:21 PM | #14 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
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 |
May 21, 2013, 05:14 PM | #15 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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. |
|
|