If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Courthouse News Service)   Refusing to let the police use your home as a lookout? That's a smashed open door and assault and arresting and jailing and some looting by the police while you are away   (courthousenews.com) divider line 370
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

14061 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jul 2013 at 5:03 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



370 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-04 02:23:16 PM  
That is one seriously messed up story.
 
2013-07-04 02:40:04 PM  
Some paid time off should show them.
 
2013-07-04 02:55:49 PM  
This is why we're supposed to have the right to defend ourselves with lethal force.  Good luck surviving such an encounter, though.
 
2013-07-04 03:56:09 PM  
If even a fraction of this story is true, this entire police department is getting their asses sued off.

If the resulting judgement is enough to raise taxes, they might even suffer some consequences, like paid vacations and such.
 
2013-07-04 04:12:07 PM  
USA! USA! USA!
 
2013-07-04 04:46:33 PM  
What's all this then?
 
2013-07-04 05:03:31 PM  
Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?
 
2013-07-04 05:07:17 PM  

fjnorton: That is one seriously messed up story.


Seriously.  They make the Iraqi National Police look like this guy:

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-04 05:08:04 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: If even a fraction of this story is true, this entire police department is getting their asses sued off.

If the resulting judgement is enough to raise taxes, they might even suffer some consequences, like paid vacations and such.


Unless one of the officers was in a position to make policy, or they had done this a couple of times before and so there was an unwritten policy, this will be dismissed with prejudice.

There are very, very, very few ways to sue the police.  You think THIS is bad?  I find the fact that it's almost impossible to sue the police to be worse.
 
2013-07-04 05:09:11 PM  

Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?


I think it's the first time I've ever heard of one since after we kicked the british out.

And for anyone who claims the police aren't military.  Take a look at them these days.  They're wearing military clothes and carrying military grade weapons.  Besides, as the writers of the Constitution defined it, the police do count.
 
2013-07-04 05:09:42 PM  
Honestly, I'm surprised they didn't kill the dog.
 
2013-07-04 05:09:51 PM  

Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?


No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.
 
2013-07-04 05:10:12 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-07-04 05:10:42 PM  
So far, our government has thoroughly trashed all the Constitutional Amendments but the Third.

Now they're gunning for that one too! Let no Amendment remain untrashed.
 
2013-07-04 05:10:42 PM  

Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?


The Third Amendment says "no soldier" rather than "no policeman", though.
 
2013-07-04 05:10:55 PM  

halB: Marcus Aurelius: If even a fraction of this story is true, this entire police department is getting their asses sued off.

If the resulting judgement is enough to raise taxes, they might even suffer some consequences, like paid vacations and such.

Unless one of the officers was in a position to make policy, or they had done this a couple of times before and so there was an unwritten policy, this will be dismissed with prejudice.

There are very, very, very few ways to sue the police.  You think THIS is bad?  I find the fact that it's almost impossible to sue the police to be worse.


Interesting that you find it almost impossible to sue the police when replying about an article where someone is, you guessed it, suing the police.
 
2013-07-04 05:11:17 PM  
Fark Cop Apologists to blame the homeowner in 5... 4... 3...
 
2013-07-04 05:11:57 PM  
The Mitchell family's claim includes Third Amendment violations, a rare claim in the United States. The Third Amendment prohibits quartering soldiers in citizens' homes in times of peace without the consent of the owner.

I was about to say this is kind of exciting. It was one of those stupid things that the colonial army should've never done to start with, and I've never heard of it being a problem since.

All criminals charged were dismissed with prejudice.

Criminal charges?
 
2013-07-04 05:11:59 PM  
Holy fark
 
2013-07-04 05:12:12 PM  
Holy shiat. What would have happened if he shot one of them?

/cause he should have.
 
2013-07-04 05:13:15 PM  

OgreMagi: And for anyone who claims the police aren't military.  Take a look at them these days.  They're wearing military clothes and carrying military grade weapons.  Besides, as the writers of the Constitution defined it, the police do count.


Erm, I hate to bust on your parade here, but legally the civilian police are NOT considered members of the military or state militia/national guard. This isn't a third amendment issue.

Fourth, Fifth and possibly sixth, on the other hand....
 
2013-07-04 05:13:49 PM  

halB: Marcus Aurelius: If even a fraction of this story is true, this entire police department is getting their asses sued off.

If the resulting judgement is enough to raise taxes, they might even suffer some consequences, like paid vacations and such.

Unless one of the officers was in a position to make policy, or they had done this a couple of times before and so there was an unwritten policy, this will be dismissed with prejudice.

There are very, very, very few ways to sue the police.  You think THIS is bad?  I find the fact that it's almost impossible to sue the police to be worse.


The police are in violation of 18 US 241 and 18 US 242.  Basically, civil rights violations with conspiracy thrown in.  They violated both the 3rd and 4th amendments.

The law needs to be changed so that when a cop (or anyone in a position of authority) blatantly and knowingly breaks the law, they can be held personally liable and their pension is not immune.  Let's see how quickly the cops start paying attention to the Constitution when that happens.

/Yes, I know, never going to happen.
 
2013-07-04 05:14:18 PM  
Yes, the police count as soldiers. I doubt this will turn into a Federal case, but their asses will get handed back to them.
 
2013-07-04 05:14:58 PM  

abhorrent1: Holy shiat. What would have happened if he shot one of them?

/cause he should have.


He'd have no legal right to do so, since the police identified themselves as officers of the law carrying out their duties.

Had he done so, we'd be reading about a guy headed to a date with a needle, rather than a guy headed to a date for a massive financial windfall.

However, these things really don't surprise me from California, Arizona, Texas, Florida, and New York.
 
2013-07-04 05:16:08 PM  
CSB

Back in the 70's I had a deputy pull up in my driveway and ask me if he could park there to watch another place. I figured I didn't have much choice as we were leaving for the day anyway. The only problem was the 18" pot plant growing in a container on my patio. We left and he backed his patrol car in my drive. We came back a few hours later, the cop was gone and the nice green plant was still there.
 
2013-07-04 05:16:13 PM  
This has 'notorious neighborhood crank' aaaaallllll over it. I'll wait for some actual reporting on this one
 
2013-07-04 05:16:16 PM  

hardinparamedic: abhorrent1: Holy shiat. What would have happened if he shot one of them?

/cause he should have.

He'd have no legal right to do so, since the police identified themselves as officers of the law carrying out their duties.

Had he done so, we'd be reading about a guy headed to a date with a needle, rather than a guy headed to a date for a massive financial windfall.

However, these things really don't surprise me from California, Arizona, Texas, Florida, and New York.


"Their duties" include illegally breaking into people's homes and shooting them and their pets with pepper balls?
 
m00
2013-07-04 05:16:17 PM  
So the cops did all this to gain a command post for a domestic violence case? Really? Something's fishy here.
 
2013-07-04 05:16:43 PM  
Clearly they were Wonton Criminals. I mean If they had nothing to Hide why didn't they Let the officers in their home and offer to cook them a fine hot meal as well. They should have invited any daughters they had home as well for the officers. It may have been a bit late For Prima Nocta but hey guest rights are guest rights amiright?
/sarcasm off
// the revolution will not be televised
 
2013-07-04 05:17:03 PM  

Fluid: The Third Amendment says "no soldier" rather than "no policeman", though.


And they call "ladies of the evening" crack whores now.  Semantics change.
 
2013-07-04 05:17:13 PM  

OgreMagi: They violated both the 3rd


No, they did not. There is NO Third Amendment Violation here, as the police are NOT considered under constitutional jurisprudence as members of the United States Military OR a State National Guard or Militia under the command of a Federal military commander.

Instead, it's a slam dunk for a fourth, and a fifth amendment violation of their rights.
 
2013-07-04 05:17:39 PM  

LL316: halB: Marcus Aurelius: If even a fraction of this story is true, this entire police department is getting their asses sued off.

If the resulting judgement is enough to raise taxes, they might even suffer some consequences, like paid vacations and such.

Unless one of the officers was in a position to make policy, or they had done this a couple of times before and so there was an unwritten policy, this will be dismissed with prejudice.

There are very, very, very few ways to sue the police.  You think THIS is bad?  I find the fact that it's almost impossible to sue the police to be worse.

Interesting that you find it almost impossible to sue the police when replying about an article where someone is, you guessed it, suing the police.


Anyone can file a lawsuit over pretty much anything, there's plenty of nutty examples. Their point is, that the game is rigged; it's very difficult to win a civil suit against the police. And damn near impossible to sue them personally.
 
2013-07-04 05:17:44 PM  
The only other third amendment case I can think of was one where prison guards went on strike and were replaced with members of the national guard. The prison guards had living quarters on site at the prison which they paid rent for. During the strike they were locked out of their living quarters and the national guard used them. If I recall correctly, the judge said he couldn't rule for the prison guards because there was no precedence set for him to rule on and the case wasn't clear cut enough for him to create one.
 
2013-07-04 05:18:13 PM  

bunner:


It would cost you but the results would be the same and the reresponse time would be better
 
2013-07-04 05:19:01 PM  

hardinparamedic: He'd have no legal right to do so


No, but he'd damned sure have a moral right.
At least, his moral right to defend his home from hostile invaders could be weighed against his moral obligation to stay alive to provide for a wife/child/dog, and possibly come up favorably.
 
2013-07-04 05:19:29 PM  
Hey, this is what big government does. Why are we surprised. And just wait... Big government is  gonna get LAAAAARGER! Yay!
 
2013-07-04 05:20:00 PM  

m00: So the cops did all this to gain a command post for a domestic violence case? Really? Something's fishy here.


Cops have the same attitude as those pitbulls that attempt to eat a porcupine.
 
2013-07-04 05:20:10 PM  
This department had to pay out a quarter-million $ for kicking a guy in diabetic shock in the head.
 
2013-07-04 05:20:14 PM  
Ah the Henderson Police Force... everyone in Vegas knows that's some quality right there
 
2013-07-04 05:20:58 PM  

EngineerAU: The only other third amendment case I can think of was one where prison guards went on strike and were replaced with members of the national guard. The prison guards had living quarters on site at the prison which they paid rent for. During the strike they were locked out of their living quarters and the national guard used them. If I recall correctly, the judge said he couldn't rule for the prison guards because there was no precedence set for him to rule on and the case wasn't clear cut enough for him to create one.


That's really interesting, hadn't heard of that. Plus the lockout was probably in relation to other action (the strike) and not 'we're locking you out to give them your home', otherwise even without precedence that'd be a slam dunk. Without that with it being a seperate action...yeah I could see them throwing up their hands.

/loves learning cool new things
 
2013-07-04 05:21:13 PM  

hardinparamedic: OgreMagi: They violated both the 3rd

No, they did not. There is NO Third Amendment Violation here, as the police are NOT considered under constitutional jurisprudence as members of the United States Military OR a State National Guard or Militia under the command of a Federal military commander.

Instead, it's a slam dunk for a fourth, and a fifth amendment violation of their rights.


If they aren't military, they need to stop looking and acting like military.  Until that happens, they are military.
 
2013-07-04 05:21:15 PM  

TopoGigo: hardinparamedic: He'd have no legal right to do so

No, but he'd damned sure have a moral right.
At least, his moral right to defend his home from hostile invaders could be weighed against his moral obligation to stay alive to provide for a wife/child/dog, and possibly come up favorably.


A little over 2 centuries ago, we decided that the arrogant, armed, violent jackoffs pushing us around and taxing us for the privilege had to go.  Guess what time it is.
 
2013-07-04 05:21:25 PM  

cornfedokie: Clearly they were Wonton Criminals. I mean If they had nothing to Hide why didn't they Let the officers in their home and offer to cook them a fine hot meal as well.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-04 05:21:29 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: "Their duties" include illegally breaking into people's homes and shooting them and their pets with pepper balls?


You do not have the right to shoot the police. Alternatively, Quinton Tarantino movies do not adequately represent real life, feet and all.

Unless that cop breaks into your house without identifying himself AND is in the act of raping or murdering you, you have no chance of beating a murder or attempted murder rap for shooting one, and he is perfectly within the law for forcing entry at that time after identifying himself and the reason for entry. All you're actually doing is ensuring either you'll rot in prison, or go down in a hail of police gunfire.

In fact, most states with a CCW/HCP law blatantly state the only way you have an affirmative defense to shooting a cop is the exact act I stated.

The fact that it is illegal or unconstitutional, at that point, obviously doesn't matter to Officer Friendly. At that point, if you're already that far into a situation, discretion would say do not resist, and demand a lawyer immediately, don't say a word.

But yeah. Shoot a cop, and see how far that gets you.
 
2013-07-04 05:21:43 PM  

bunner: [i.imgur.com image 500x280]


What's the difference?
 
2013-07-04 05:22:12 PM  

halB: Unless one of the officers was in a position to make policy, or they had done this a couple of times before and so there was an unwritten policy, this will be dismissed with prejudice.


You do realize that this is in federal court, right?
You do realize that this is constitutional rights case?

Yah, my guess is that this will actually be a pretty interesting case.
 
2013-07-04 05:22:20 PM  
I'd say fark the police, but around here, Denver, they aren't so bad. Sue them into the stone age, so they have to resort to actual investigation, a opposed to intimidation and abuse. A cop saved my life, once, long ago. That does not preclude me from seeing the bad apples within the brotherhood.
 
2013-07-04 05:22:43 PM  

hardinparamedic: OgreMagi: They violated both the 3rd

No, they did not. There is NO Third Amendment Violation here, as the police are NOT considered under constitutional jurisprudence as members of the United States Military OR a State National Guard or Militia under the command of a Federal military commander.

Instead, it's a slam dunk for a fourth, and a fifth amendment violation of their rights.


Any judge who holds an original intent doctrine would say this violates the third. In fact, I'd guess the SCOUS would rule 6-3 against, depending on Scalia's mood.
 
2013-07-04 05:23:07 PM  
Happy Fourth of July, suckers.
 
2013-07-04 05:23:23 PM  

The_Gallant_Gallstone: bunner: [i.imgur.com image 500x280]

What's the difference?


We don't actually sign the paychecks for the Crips?
 
Displayed 50 of 370 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report