The third amendment, the one that we thought wasn't really relevant anymore. Just got discarded

[Rostere]

I doubt they had authorization, they would need a judge to sign off on it.

 

It's funny that Volourn is in complete agreement with me here but is yelling at me in the other cop thread

 

 

edit:  I can see why someone would not let the cops stakeout in their house.  It gets you involved in a domestic violence case.  What happens if the neighbor doesn't go to prison, or gets out in a year, and you still have to live next to him/her?

 

I don't know?

 

Where I live, the assumption would be that any citizen would let the police use their house, and if the citizen would disagree, that the police could politely do as they wanted anyway, of course recompensating for any inconvenience. Additionally, most people would rather go to the police than be bullied by any criminal. It's hard and/or pointless to threaten people if you know the stakes are against you, and we can only make this so by acting collectively in support of the law enforcement.

[NOK222]

 

 

Additionally, most people would rather go to the police than be bullied by any criminal.

Well, in America is not quite this clean and dry. 

[Orogun01]

 

I doubt they had authorization, they would need a judge to sign off on it.

 

It's funny that Volourn is in complete agreement with me here but is yelling at me in the other cop thread

 

 

edit:  I can see why someone would not let the cops stakeout in their house.  It gets you involved in a domestic violence case.  What happens if the neighbor doesn't go to prison, or gets out in a year, and you still have to live next to him/her?

 

I don't know?

 

Where I live, the assumption would be that any citizen would let the police use their house, and if the citizen would disagree, that the police could politely do as they wanted anyway, of course recompensating for any inconvenience. Additionally, most people would rather go to the police than be bullied by any criminal. It's hard and/or pointless to threaten people if you know the stakes are against you, and we can only make this so by acting collectively in support of the law enforcement.

 

So let's say for argument's sake that the police has a right to seize your property in the interest of an investigation. First, they had no authorization and weren't acting according to the law. Secondly, they engaged in coercion, abuse of their authority and other manner of illegal activity just because they couldn't be bothered to either go through proper channels or to search for an alternative.

There is also an outstanding amount of case just like this one (and even worse ones) that go either unreported by the victims or that the legal action taken is nothing more than a slap on the wrist. So when the police behave like criminals and the law protects them, is it illegal to defend yourself against them?

 

[Gorgon]

It's a bit of a stretch calling this obstruction. What exactly are the rules on the police demanding use of your property for a potentially lengthy surveliance.

[Rostere]

So let's say for argument's sake that the police has a right to seize your property in the interest of an investigation. First, they had no authorization and weren't acting according to the law. Secondly, they engaged in coercion, abuse of their authority and other manner of illegal activity just because they couldn't be bothered to either go through proper channels or to search for an alternative.

There is also an outstanding amount of case just like this one (and even worse ones) that go either unreported by the victims or that the legal action taken is nothing more than a slap on the wrist. So when the police behave like criminals and the law protects them, is it illegal to defend yourself against them?

 

Well, obviously, but I assumed when I entered the discussion that the only thing preventing the police from entering the house was the "third amendment". If that was not the case, it is another matter entirely. It is not only useful but also responsible to keep the laws of your country up to date. If the police commited a crime unrelated to entering the building in itself then I think they should be punished for it.

[Orogun01]

The problem is that they are not which is why they know they can get away with it. So i'm kinda morbidly hoping for a case like the one Volo describes which makes all the way to the Supreme Court forcing them to finally make legislation regarding what the maximum use of force a police officer is allowed to use, in what circumstances its the use of force acceptable and what the punishments should be should they infringe upon the law. 
I know it's a little extreme but the reality of this stupid country is that a situation of such magnitude is what's required in order for them to address this issue, which it shouldn't be like that IMO.

[Volourn]

"On a less grand personal note, what kind of bastard would refuse to help the cops stop a case of serious domestic abuse? By the sound of this rather one sided article the police wanted to get (quote) "a tactical advantage." In other words they either wanted his house so they could catch the suspect unawares, and or not get shot by him in the process. So we have a plaintiff who doesn't give a **** about either the victim or the people trying to help them. So, I in turn don't really give a **** about their feelings. Or their pet dog."

 

They aren't doing any such thing. They are refusing to let them use their home. Where. they. live. 'tatical advantage'. L0LZ  Police should eb capable of doiung their jobs and stopping 'serious domestic abuse' without stealing innocent people's private property. FFS

 

 

"Where I live, the assumption would be that any citizen would let the police use their house, and if the citizen would disagree, that the police could politely do as they wanted anyway, of course recompensating for any inconvenience. Additionally, most people would rather go to the police than be bullied by any criminal. It's hard and/or pointless to threaten people if you know the stakes are against you, and we can only make this so by acting collectively in support of the law enforcement."

 

'Politely' do as they want? L0L How do they manage that?

 

L0L 'Bullied by criminal'. If the cops are stealing my property theya r eno longer cops. Just bullies. if they can take whatever they want when theyw ant that makes them bullies and absusing their power. wHICH IS IMMORAL, EVIL, AND SELFISH.

 

Why do people feel then police should be allowed to do whatever they want just because they have a unfiorm? That's screwed up.

[NOK222]

 

 

They aren't doing any such thing. They are refusing to let them use their home. Where. they. live. 'tatical advantage'. L0LZ  Police should eb capable of doiung their jobs and stopping 'serious domestic abuse' without stealing innocent people's private property. FFS

I can't believe I'm agreeing with this. 

[Nepenthe]

 

I doubt they had authorization, they would need a judge to sign off on it.

 

It's funny that Volourn is in complete agreement with me here but is yelling at me in the other cop thread

 

 

edit:  I can see why someone would not let the cops stakeout in their house.  It gets you involved in a domestic violence case.  What happens if the neighbor doesn't go to prison, or gets out in a year, and you still have to live next to him/her?

 

I don't know?

 

Where I live, the assumption would be that any citizen would let the police use their house, and if the citizen would disagree, that the police could politely do as they wanted anyway, of course recompensating for any inconvenience. Additionally, most people would rather go to the police than be bullied by any criminal. It's hard and/or pointless to threaten people if you know the stakes are against you, and we can only make this so by acting collectively in support of the law enforcement.

 

 

I don't think you've actually had to deal with any "real" criminals in your time. In a fundamentally safe, liberal society like the nordic countries individual criminals and troublemakers can get away with a lot more than they would in a more repressed society. Truely, whoever wrote Ra's al Ghul's line ("Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding.") in Batman Begins was right on the money.

 

I have to deal with the "dark side of the welfare state" on a daily basis. I wouldv'e acted as the plaintiffs did in this case. (including probably calling my mother when police start to force their way into my apartment :D)

[Walsingham]

 

 

 

They aren't doing any such thing. They are refusing to let them use their home. Where. they. live. 'tatical advantage'. L0LZ  Police should eb capable of doiung their jobs and stopping 'serious domestic abuse' without stealing innocent people's private property. FFS

I can't believe I'm agreeing with this. 

 

 

Given that Volo disagrees with everything it's literally impossible not to find yourself standing  next to him occasionally. If you suck an aniseed ball it helps mask the smell.

[Malcador]

Not very reassured that you like my itching, Volo.

 

Hurlshot has already said that these cops probably got it wrong and normal procedures will see they get nailed. Just not on the third amendment.

 

On a less grand personal note, what kind of bastard would refuse to help the cops stop a case of serious domestic abuse? By the sound of this rather one sided article the police wanted to get (quote) "a tactical advantage." In other words they either wanted his house so they could catch the suspect unawares, and or not get shot by him in the process. So we have a plaintiff who doesn't give a **** about either the victim or the people trying to help them. So, I in turn don't really give a **** about their feelings. Or their pet dog.

Cops can't think of a plan B ? Interesting reaction from you, expected as much.

[Walsingham]

 

Not very reassured that you like my itching, Volo.

 

Hurlshot has already said that these cops probably got it wrong and normal procedures will see they get nailed. Just not on the third amendment.

 

On a less grand personal note, what kind of bastard would refuse to help the cops stop a case of serious domestic abuse? By the sound of this rather one sided article the police wanted to get (quote) "a tactical advantage." In other words they either wanted his house so they could catch the suspect unawares, and or not get shot by him in the process. So we have a plaintiff who doesn't give a **** about either the victim or the people trying to help them. So, I in turn don't really give a **** about their feelings. Or their pet dog.

Cops can't think of a plan B ? Interesting reaction from you, expected as much.

 

 

Look, man. I expect a lot from the cops. But I also acknowledge that they take some heavy ****ing risks. When was the last time you risked for life to help someone else? And if you had, don't you think you'd get annoyed if someone wanted you to run a higher risk just because they were worried their dog would get upset?

 

Listening to you people I swear you'd be happier with automated drones.

[Malcador]

Look, man. I expect a lot from the cops. But I also acknowledge that they take some heavy ****ing risks. When was the last time you risked for life to help someone else? And if you had, don't you think you'd get annoyed if someone wanted you to run a higher risk just because they were worried their dog would get upset?

 

Listening to you people I swear you'd be happier with automated drones.

They were risking what exactly in this situation, though ? The guy doesn't want them in his house, and there's no war or gun battle raging that makes his house critical to lives. Public servants for you, I guess.

[Walsingham]

I accept that there's no indication in the article that there was shooting going on. But the nature of US law enforcement is that they have to assume firearms are in the equation all the time.

 

My real question is what is the point of this discussion? To sow fear of the police? Or to galvanise effective action to improve them?

 

Can you not see that many of the problems with cops are exacerbated by treating them as brutes? You'll laugh but it really does hurt their feelings. That in turn poisons the respect they have to try and give the public, despite them knowing how many members of the public are thieves, rapists, dealers etc etc.

[Meshugger]

 

 

 "On the morning of July 10th, 2011, officers from the Henderson Police Department responded to a domestic violence call at a neighbor's residence," the Mitchells say in the complaint.

 

I do not see any gray area here really. What the cops did was a complete violation of privacy since there was no crime, no suspicion of a crime or harboring any criminal. 

 

I clear cut case in my eyes.

[Amentep]

However, I remain firm in my objection that the Constitution needs to be updated with reviews.

I read this bit and imagined the constitution with "like" buttons by the amendments.

 

 

Can you not see that many of the problems with cops are exacerbated by treating them as brutes? You'll laugh but it really does hurt their feelings. That in turn poisons the respect they have to try and give the public, despite them knowing how many members of the public are thieves, rapists, dealers etc etc.

 

The problem is this is the same line of thinking that causes cops to protect other bad cops.  That tarnishing one of them tarnishes them all.

 

No, being open and honest about your dealings with the public, investigating and - if necessary - taking action against cops who go too far will only tarnish the image of the police in the eyes of those who'll never trust the police. 

 

They're not all brutes; but the system shouldn't protect those that are, either.

[Volourn]

"despite them knowing how many members of the public are thieves, rapists, dealers etc etc."

 

A very very, very tiny, tiny, tiny percentage. And, if theya re gonna react like every member is a rapist, murderer, or other vioent criminal than the police force is a lost cause. It also spits in the fate of the mandate of PROTECT AND SERVE.

 

PROTECT AND SERVE. NOT HARASS AND ASSAULT.

[Orogun01]

Actually that Protect and Serve is something of a pipe dream, thanks to Warren vs The District of Columbia there is precedent that says that policemen have no obligation to victims of crime even if they are due to the negligence of the police. 
Translation: you could be mauled, robbed, mutilated, and more with a police officer watching without doing a thing and he wouldn't be liable for negligence.

[Walsingham]

 

However, I remain firm in my objection that the Constitution needs to be updated with reviews.

I read this bit and imagined the constitution with "like" buttons by the amendments.

 

 

Can you not see that many of the problems with cops are exacerbated by treating them as brutes? You'll laugh but it really does hurt their feelings. That in turn poisons the respect they have to try and give the public, despite them knowing how many members of the public are thieves, rapists, dealers etc etc.

 

The problem is this is the same line of thinking that causes cops to protect other bad cops.  That tarnishing one of them tarnishes them all.

 

No, being open and honest about your dealings with the public, investigating and - if necessary - taking action against cops who go too far will only tarnish the image of the police in the eyes of those who'll never trust the police. 

 

They're not all brutes; but the system shouldn't protect those that are, either.

 

 

I didn't say it did. But if we can zero in on that aspect, I was taught it's art of ingroup/outgroup dynamics. The more distinct a group is, the more loyalty it feels to itself, and the more it norms on its own behaviours rather than those of general society.

 

To an extent you want this to happen in any organisation deisgned to sacrifice life and limb - military, police, fire service.

 

But when it goes too far it becomes toxic.

 

One way in which to over-egg the ingroup/outgroup dynamics is to treat them like a uniform with a pig inside it. Although of course it depends on the context, and if they are being slack or over the top when you encounter them.

 

Plus as I've already said, militarising the police doesn't help.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Walsingham

[Volourn]

"Translation: you could be mauled, robbed, mutilated, and more with a police officer watching without doing a thing and he wouldn't be liable for negligence."
 

That's because too often the police aren't used to help and protect innocents but to uphold power and control the populace.

 

The ideal police mandate just doesn't exist anymore.  Hence why they look more like an army than a police force. Thanfkully, that kind of crapculture  hasn't completely  invaded by place of living.

[Orogun01]

 

 

However, I remain firm in my objection that the Constitution needs to be updated with reviews.

I read this bit and imagined the constitution with "like" buttons by the amendments.

 

 

Can you not see that many of the problems with cops are exacerbated by treating them as brutes? You'll laugh but it really does hurt their feelings. That in turn poisons the respect they have to try and give the public, despite them knowing how many members of the public are thieves, rapists, dealers etc etc.

 

The problem is this is the same line of thinking that causes cops to protect other bad cops.  That tarnishing one of them tarnishes them all.

 

No, being open and honest about your dealings with the public, investigating and - if necessary - taking action against cops who go too far will only tarnish the image of the police in the eyes of those who'll never trust the police. 

 

They're not all brutes; but the system shouldn't protect those that are, either.

 

 

I didn't say it did. But if we can zero in on that aspect, I was taught it's art of ingroup/outgroup dynamics. The more distinct a group is, the more loyalty it feels to itself, and the more it norms on its own behaviours rather than those of general society.

 

To an extent you want this to happen in any organisation deisgned to sacrifice life and limb - military, police, fire service.

 

But when it goes too far it becomes toxic.

 

One way in which to over-egg the ingroup/outgroup dynamics is to treat them like a uniform with a pig inside it. Although of course it depends on the context, and if they are being slack or over the top when you encounter them.

 

Plus as I've already said, militarising the police doesn't help.

 

I think that the gestapo despite all their training and espirit de corps would rat out the guy who was dating a Jew. They wouldn't go "Hey man, we get it. Some of these girls are hot"

The actions of these policemen run contrary to the ideals of the organization, that the other policemen understand or help cover it means that on some level they also disregard the ideals and norms on which a police force was founded. If it really has gotten so bad that the police will not police themselves because of loyalty to miscreant elements within, then the whole organism is failing. 

[Walsingham]

Sorry, Orogun. Bit tired here. Didn't follow you.

 

Say again?

[Volourn]

If you have a group of four police officers. Two dickheads who abuse their power. And, two otheriwse good guys who just want to do their job and do it the right way. But, they ignore all the scummy things the two dickheads are doing out of a sense of loyalty the 'two good guys' are really no better. And, it hurts the whole organization.

[Walsingham]

Sure. Which is why it isn't appalling that Internal Affairs exist. Not to mention parrallel security organisations, and democratic officials above them. You can't possibly expect organisations to police <sic> themselves all the time.

 

But don't let me disturb your fun. You crack on screaming about twisted evil policemen.

[Orogun01]

Sorry, Orogun. Bit tired here. Didn't follow you.

 

Say again?

You spoke about the group dynamics within professions that require a certain amount of danger. Within these professions it is understood that you need to rely on your partners with your life and that they rely on you. Normally when someone fails to conform to the group goals and dynamics there is some amount of hazing involved to try to weed out the bad behavior which put everyone at risk. When the group protects said bad behavior and regards it as the goal then there is something seriously ****ed up about it.

In short, there really is no excuse to protect policemen who bully and abuse their authority even if you're a policeman.