or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 11

post #151 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nil View Post

I still don't see how any of that is illegal.

When they told him to beat it and turn down the music and he refused? In my state that's a crime.
post #152 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Video-Shows-Hawthorne-Police-Killing-Dog-While-Arresting-Its-Owner-213941491.html

So the cops' version of the events it that there was an active standoff with armed robbers, and the guy drove up to it, put his radio on full blast, and took that big mean dog out and started walking it back and forth next to the cops.

Not at all clear that's an illegal arrest.


You can hear the audio on the video, the music is not loud at all. And he was videorecording the cops from a block away. The cops are clearly lying.
Quote:
Michael Gulden, Rosby's attorney, said his client was targeted because he had a pending lawsuit against the Hawthorne Police Department. Rosby alleged that police beat him without cause.

Arresting someone because they're suing you is an illegal arrest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post

Seems he was charged with obstruction because the police were trying to get someone to come out of the house and he was interfering with his music.

He wasn't charged with anything. They arrested him on "suspicion of interference."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

When they told him to beat it and turn down the music and he refused? In my state that's a crime.

Where does it say they asked him to beat it or turn down the music and he refused?
post #153 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

You can hear the audio on the video, the music is not loud at all.

Neither are the gunshots, for that matter.
post #154 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

When they told him to beat it and turn down the music and he refused? In my state that's a crime.

so you live in east germany under the stazi?
post #155 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

Where does it say they asked him to beat it or turn down the music and he refused?

I don't know. Does it not say that? I don't have time to read it again.

It sure looks like he had contact with the cops in the video, unless he's just volunteering for them to arrest him.
post #156 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I don't know. Does it not say that? I don't have time to read it again.

It sure looks like he had contact with the cops in the video, unless he's just volunteering for them to arrest him.

It doesn't say that. And by "contact" you mean he's talking smack to the officers, that's possible, but that is not a valid cause for arrest.
post #157 of 6095
http://www.10news.com/news/u-s-world/southern-california-police-officer-kill-dog-in-videotaped-shooting-leon-rosby-arrested-on-charges-of-obstructing-officers-72
Quote:
Police arrested a bystander they say refused to turn down blaring car music during the incident. A cellphone video, posted on YouTube, shows the dog leaping out of the car window and lunging at officers who handcuffed its master. It's shot four times.
post #158 of 6095
"They say"

The video is right there. They are clearly lying.
post #159 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

"They say"

The video is right there. They are clearly lying.

The music is louder than the gunshots in the video and both were coming from equidistant sources.
post #160 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post

The music is louder than the gunshots in the video and both were coming from equidistant sources.

The small microphones in cell phones (which I assume the video was captured on) have trouble recording high dB sounds like gun shots. It's possible for the sounds to appear of equal volume in the recording when in reality they were not.
post #161 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nil View Post

The small microphones in cell phones (which I assume the video was captured on) have trouble recording high dB sounds like gun shots. It's possible for the sounds to appear of equal volume in the recording when in reality they were not.

Yeah, maybe that could be the case if there weren't other sounds of higher amplitude already recorded (like the videographers talking). If the amplitude range were limited and the gunshots were of the highest dB level then they would be at the upper limit, but they're not -- the videographers talking is.

This is all rather silly and pointless, anyway. Some of you want to see the cops punished, and truth be damned to that end. We can argue about a Youtube video all day and it doesn't matter a bit.
post #162 of 6095
Green's lawsuit alleges the cop who shot his dog had a dog pole in his vehicle.
post #163 of 6095
http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/05/nevada-family-says-police-occupation-vio#comment
Quote:
You don't often hear about lawsuits based on the Third Amendment, the one that says "no soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law." That usually overlooked provision is cited in a federal lawsuit recently filed by Anthony Mitchell and his parents, Michael and Linda Mitchell—an oddity for which we can thank the Henderson, Nevada, police department. The Mitchells, who live in separate houses near each other in the Las Vegas suburb, were forcibly evicted from their homes on July 10, 2011, by police officers responding to a domestic violence report involving one of their neighbors. Here is how it all started, according to the complaint:

At 10:45 a.m. defendant Officer Christopher Worley (HPD) contacted plaintiff Anthony Mitchell via his telephone. Worley told plaintiff that police needed to occupy his home in order to gain a "tactical advantage" against the occupant of the neighboring house. Anthony Mitchell told the officer that he did not want to become involved and that he did not want police to enter his residence. Although Worley continued to insist that plaintiff should leave his residence, plaintiff clearly explained that he did not intend to leave his home or to allow police to occupy his home. Worley then ended the phone call.

The cops did not take no for an answer:

[Henderson police officers] banged forcefully on the door and loudly commanded Anthony Mitchell to open the door to his residence. Surprised and perturbed, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell immediately called his mother (plaintiff Linda Mitchell) on the phone, exclaiming to her that the police were beating on his front door.

Seconds later, officers, including Officer Rockwell, smashed open plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's front door with a metal ram as plaintiff stood in his living room. As plaintiff Anthony Mitchell stood in shock, the officers aimed their weapons at Anthony Mitchell and shouted obscenities at him and ordered him to lie down on the floor. Fearing for his life, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell dropped his phone and prostrated himself onto the floor of his living room, covering his face and hands.

Addressing plaintiff as "asshole," officers, including Officer Snyder, shouted conflicting orders at Anthony Mitchell, commanding him to both shut off his phone, which was on the floor in front of his head, and simultaneously commanding him to 'crawl' toward the officers. Confused and terrified, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell remained curled on the floor of his living room, with his hands over his face, and made no movement.

Although plaintiff Anthony Mitchell was lying motionless on the ground and posed no threat, officers, including Officer David Cawthorn, then fired multiple "pepperball" rounds at plaintiff as he lay defenseless on the floor of his living room. Anthony Mitchell was struck at least three times by shots fired from close range, injuring him and causing him severe pain.

The cops pepperballed Mitchell's dog for good measure, even though she was "cowering in the corner when officers smashed through the front door." They charged Mitchell with...wait for it..."obstructing an officer." His father, Michael, faced the same charge after he tried to leave a police command center to which he was lured under false pretenses while the police took over his house as well. The two men were jailed for nine hours before making bail, and the charges ultimately were dismissed with prejudice. The lawsuit argues that police filed the unjustified charges "to provide cover for defendants' wrongful actions, to frustrate and impede plaintiffs' ability to seek relief for those actions, and to further intimidate and retaliate against plaintiffs." In addition to Third and Fourth Amendment violations tied to the warrantless occupation of their homes, the Mitchells say the police are guilty of assault and battery, conspiracy, defamation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, negligence, and infliction of emotional distress.

I suspect he'll have more success with the 4th Amendment claim then the 3rd, but considering that our domestic police departments have been militarized I'm not sure there's much of a difference anymore.
post #164 of 6095
Has the Third Amendment been incorporated against the states?
post #165 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambulance Chaser View Post

Has the Third Amendment been incorporated against the states?

Yes, Engblom v. Carey incorporated it in 1979.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?