User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 7:28:51 AM EST
[#1]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 7:33:07 AM EST
[#2]
Here is what I see. Apparently these people are NOT presumed innocent until proven guilty – or it certainly appears that way from several of the comments on this thread. LEO’s DO NOT DETERMINE if a person is guilty or not! That is what sets us apart from – I don’t know – third world dictatorships!? Or, it used to anyway. Based on the tactics, comments of posters, and supposed rights a house does or doesn’t have, these people were determined guilty long before the “SWAT” team even gets to the private property. Why can’t a person have their own video surveillance equipment to monitor who or what comes on their PRIVATE PROPERTY?. The “state” can video record citizens walking down the damn street, but they can’t monitor their own yard? Seems like a pretty F-ed up double standard. What would happen to me if I "disabled" a camera before I walked down a street?
Maybe these people are guilty of breaking every law in the book - I don't know and neither did any of the SWAT team at the point they bashed down the door. However, “Peace Officers” DO NOT DETERMINE guilt and until the accused are convicted, they have EVERY right the LEO does that knocks down their door! If they don't this country is screwed. It's a screwed up situation all around. But if the current trend of LEO "no knock" military style searches continue, we will end up with an extremely horrible situation in this country where there will be a shoot out with both the LEO's and citizen's losing in the long run. And it will increase the speed at which we are turning into a complete "police state" with the divide between cops and citizens growing past a point it can be repaired. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 7:45:19 AM EST
[#3]
Fucking terrible. And to think we are actually paying for this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 7:53:00 AM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
no, I am not in this department. the video in the OP says that one of those arrested in the home was a drug dealer. looks like the initial charges for the other arrested are in relation to the drugs found as well. no, there is no law that prevents you from having an AV recording system in your home. if you are in a stack making the approach to the house an come upon a camera the quickest method of disabling it is to yank it out, this does not "destroy" the camera, just breaks the wire and maybe the mount. as I said in the beginning of this thread, these guys look to have little to no training. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even do a recon before the approach to look for cameras to have the time to plan for them. from the OPs video it seemed that only a few exterior cameras (1-2) were damaged. and inside ones were covered. like I said, the OPs video says one person in the home was arrested for being a drug dealer. drugs+known guns in the house= high risk. I dont know if they knew about the drugs before hand or not, I didnt read the warrant. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I usually tend to fall on the side of LE as we never seem to get the full story on incidents like this. But ripping out video cameras? WTF? bad guys dont get to record the search. and cameras will be disabled when approaching on a high risk warrant. and no, the drug dealers inside the home did not just have up a bunch of cameras because they work in AV and "like to tinker" drug dealers set up cameras to watch for the cops and for their tweeker customers. Are you one of the LEO's in the video/Dept? Because you obviously have a lot more information then any one else reading that article.... So tell me Sir, What law would prevent me from having a Audio/Visual Security system in my house recording stuff? I understand LEO disabling a a camera on the approach, that can be done with a shirt, a trash bag or many ways without destroying it. Hell a glove works well, but tearing it off the wall when easier ways are there? Come on. And then covering up cameras AFTER everyone is secured? Sounds fishy to me. Please Sir, show me where the "High Risk" was? I admit, there may have been something in the past or something not reported in the article, but you are declaring it as a fact that these folks are drug dealers. no, I am not in this department. the video in the OP says that one of those arrested in the home was a drug dealer. looks like the initial charges for the other arrested are in relation to the drugs found as well. no, there is no law that prevents you from having an AV recording system in your home. if you are in a stack making the approach to the house an come upon a camera the quickest method of disabling it is to yank it out, this does not "destroy" the camera, just breaks the wire and maybe the mount. as I said in the beginning of this thread, these guys look to have little to no training. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even do a recon before the approach to look for cameras to have the time to plan for them. from the OPs video it seemed that only a few exterior cameras (1-2) were damaged. and inside ones were covered. like I said, the OPs video says one person in the home was arrested for being a drug dealer. drugs+known guns in the house= high risk. I dont know if they knew about the drugs before hand or not, I didnt read the warrant. OK, I think I was reading your posts in the wrong context then. Lets see if we agree. We both agree a warrant was justified, with a possible elevated risk for one individual in the house? Tactics and the team itself was just a walking ClusterF**k on wheels... ? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 7:55:21 AM EST
[#5]
This is all done for the safety of LEO's.
What about officers start looking at the safety of the subjects they swore to protect? Some LEO's sadly, will lose thier lives in the line of duty. It's part of the job. No one can change this, but we can try to prevent it, but not at the lose of rights. just like subjects will die when someone breaks into thier home while they are waiting for LEO's to arrive. We can try to prevent it, but not at the lose of rights. Its always about protecting thier own and not about thier sworn oath to protect and serve the subjects. Until officers stick to thier oath, it will always be us vs. them. Now, I think that there are great LEO's that risk thier lives everyday, and there are also shitbags. LEO's seem to lump everyone they deal with as shitbags, but get pissy when subjects label them as all shitbags. The real world is not like that. When LEO's start treating subjects with respect and they will recieve the same. LEO's can complain all they want about the wrap they have and the risk they take on the job, it will fall mute, because this is the job they chose. They were not force to take the job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 7:58:45 AM EST
[#6]
Update to story.
Police screwed up the search warrant. The went after the wrong man. Monday, we reported one of the four people listed, Richard Forestier Adair, had no real criminal record. But the name on the warrant is apparently wrong. Adair’s middle name is Foster and he does have a long criminal record but very few violent arrests. Adair has two assault convictions about 14-years ago and a domestic assault conviction in 2002. Ankeny police would not address why the officer ripped the security camera from the wall. http://whotv.com/2014/02/04/new-details-ankeny-police-responds-after-raid/ The PD will hold a press conference today at 1:30PM to address the raid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 8:01:41 AM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here is what I see. Apparently these people are NOT presumed innocent until proven guilty – or it certainly appears that way from several of the comments on this thread. LEO’s DO NOT DETERMINE if a person is guilty or not! That is what sets us apart from – I don’t know – third world dictatorships!? Or, it used to anyway. Based on the tactics, comments of posters, and supposed rights a house does or doesn’t have, these people were determined guilty long before the “SWAT” team even gets to the private property. Why can’t a person have their own video surveillance equipment to monitor who or what comes on their PRIVATE PROPERTY?. The “state” can video record citizens walking down the damn street, but they can’t monitor their own yard? Seems like a pretty F-ed up double standard. What would happen to me if I "disabled" a camera before I walked down a street? Maybe these people are guilty of breaking every law in the book - I don't know and neither did any of the SWAT team at the point they bashed down the door. However, “Peace Officers” DO NOT DETERMINE guilt and until the accused are convicted, they have EVERY right the LEO does that knocks down their door! If they don't this country is screwed. It's a screwed up situation all around. But if the current trend of LEO "no knock" military style searches continue, we will end up with an extremely horrible situation in this country where there will be a shoot out with both the LEO's and citizen's losing in the long run. And it will increase the speed at which we are turning into a complete "police state" with the divide between cops and citizens growing past a point it can be repaired. being kinda over dramatic there. everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. yes, LEO determines if you are guilty or not, always has. if you are guilty we arrest you and bring you to court to prove it. you don't goto court before you are arrested. 
there is no reason you cant have your own video system, no one has said you cant. there is a difference between public property and private property, I don't have the time or the patience to explain it to you right now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 8:02:32 AM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK, I think I was reading your posts in the wrong context then. Lets see if we agree. We both agree a warrant was justified, with a possible elevated risk for one individual in the house? Tactics and the team itself was just a walking ClusterF**k on wheels... ?
close enough 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 8:04:31 AM EST
[#9]
Family calls Ankeny police raid excessive
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20140205/NEWS01/302050051/?odyssey=nav|head&nclick_check=1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 8:09:26 AM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
being kinda over dramatic there. everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. yes, LEO determines if you are guilty or not, always has. if you are guilty we arrest you and bring you to court to prove it. you don't goto court before you are arrested Really, Kojak? Do you pass sentence, too? There's a certain logical disconnect you're not seeing here... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 8:09:47 AM EST
[#11]
Here's what I see.
I see a warrant for theft and stolen property... with a high enough dollar amount to make it a felony. Multiple individuals at the residence, several of which have criminal records, including violent crimes. The two individuals who were arrested for "unrelated charges" were actually listed on the warrant. There are known to be weapons at the location, as an individual in that home is a known gun owner (and apparently hangs out with drugs users and violent criminals). 
It's at least a split-level home, with a basement, and outbuildings (detached garage). Here you can see officers headed to the outbuildings, while a female subject (presumably one of those listed on the warrant) is handcuffed in the basement. Note the officer standing half out of the frame: 
We see a screen-grab of the officer who disables the front-door camera... looks like a heavy-set white guy with glasses. I'm sure you can ID him with this grainy/blurry photo: 
I'm as big a proponent of surveillance cameras as you'll find anywhere... but I understand why the police wanted to disable them. They want them disabled for the very same reasons I would want mine ENABLED, were I facing a group of intruders or home-invaders. Cameras provide a major tactical advantage against intruders... and the police serving a warrant would want to remove that advantage from the suspects. Cameras provide: Detection (seeing something coming). Identification (are they cops or gangbangers?) Real-time intel (for capability, numbers, armament, movement) Evidence/Forensics (taken frame-by-frame for evidentiary purposes) Were I serving a warrant, there's no way I'd leave a camera unobstructed/unmolested, since it may be showing the bad guys the position/movement/approach/tactics of my team. As a general rule, you don't want any potential bad guys to see what you're doing. It's the very same thought process that occurs when police get upset at the local TV station showing a live shot from a hovering helicopter of the team moving into position. That's a good way to get men killed. As for a person on the warrant being a legal gun owner, you have to expect the police to plan around the worst-case scenario. The gun owner may have never committed a crime, but his friends sure seem prone to it. Once again, you're judged by the company you keep... and the police are going to plan for the contingency where that gun will be used against them. It's just the way it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 8:11:06 AM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The premises are seized and then released when the search is over. Until there is some caselaw that says turning off a camera system violates a law then I'd do it. As for the fridge...If I want to unplug it I will. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ever read a SW? They allow a search, not a seizure of the premises. The things to be seized are within the place to be searched. There is unquestionably a right to record within one's own premises. What is the authority given to the government to terminate the recording? Do they have the authority to unplug the refrigerator, too? The premises are seized and then released when the search is over. Until there is some caselaw that says turning off a camera system violates a law then I'd do it. As for the fridge...If I want to unplug it I will. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 8:12:01 AM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Really, Kojak? Do you pass sentence, too? There's a certain logical disconnect you're not seeing here... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
being kinda over dramatic there. everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. yes, LEO determines if you are guilty or not, always has. if you are guilty we arrest you and bring you to court to prove it. you don't goto court before you are arrested Really, Kojak? Do you pass sentence, too? There's a certain logical disconnect you're not seeing here... LEO determines if you are guilty or not, Wow, just WOW...... someone here has NO grasp of the legal system...... at all. Scary actually. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 8:12:25 AM EST
[#14]
May I correct you? You are suspected of committing a crime and you are arrested. You are Innocent until tried and convicted in a court – then you are guilty. BIG DIFFERENCE. Also, if anything, private property is MORE sacred than “public” property and should be treated as such.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 8:13:27 AM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The premises are seized and then released when the search is over. Until there is some caselaw that says turning off a camera system violates a law then I'd do it. As for the fridge...If I want to unplug it I will. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ever read a SW? They allow a search, not a seizure of the premises. The things to be seized are within the place to be searched. There is unquestionably a right to record within one's own premises. What is the authority given to the government to terminate the recording? Do they have the authority to unplug the refrigerator, too? The premises are seized and then released when the search is over. Until there is some caselaw that says turning off a camera system violates a law then I'd do it. As for the fridge...If I want to unplug it I will. It doesn't matter if you have the authority or not all that matters is if you have been specifically told not to do something. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 8:22:01 AM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
being kinda over dramatic there. everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. yes, LEO determines if you are guilty or not, always has. if you are guilty we arrest you and bring you to court to prove it. you don't goto court before you are arrested.
there is no reason you cant have your own video system, no one has said you cant. there is a difference between public property and private property, I don't have the time or the patience to explain it to you right now. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Here is what I see. Apparently these people are NOT presumed innocent until proven guilty – or it certainly appears that way from several of the comments on this thread. LEO’s DO NOT DETERMINE if a person is guilty or not! That is what sets us apart from – I don’t know – third world dictatorships!? Or, it used to anyway. Based on the tactics, comments of posters, and supposed rights a house does or doesn’t have, these people were determined guilty long before the “SWAT” team even gets to the private property. Why can’t a person have their own video surveillance equipment to monitor who or what comes on their PRIVATE PROPERTY?. The “state” can video record citizens walking down the damn street, but they can’t monitor their own yard? Seems like a pretty F-ed up double standard. What would happen to me if I "disabled" a camera before I walked down a street? Maybe these people are guilty of breaking every law in the book - I don't know and neither did any of the SWAT team at the point they bashed down the door. However, “Peace Officers” DO NOT DETERMINE guilt and until the accused are convicted, they have EVERY right the LEO does that knocks down their door! If they don't this country is screwed. It's a screwed up situation all around. But if the current trend of LEO "no knock" military style searches continue, we will end up with an extremely horrible situation in this country where there will be a shoot out with both the LEO's and citizen's losing in the long run. And it will increase the speed at which we are turning into a complete "police state" with the divide between cops and citizens growing past a point it can be repaired. being kinda over dramatic there. everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. yes, LEO determines if you are guilty or not, always has. if you are guilty we arrest you and bring you to court to prove it. you don't goto court before you are arrested.
there is no reason you cant have your own video system, no one has said you cant. there is a difference between public property and private property, I don't have the time or the patience to explain it to you right now. You really in LE? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 8:23:07 AM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You really in LE? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Here is what I see. Apparently these people are NOT presumed innocent until proven guilty – or it certainly appears that way from several of the comments on this thread. LEO’s DO NOT DETERMINE if a person is guilty or not! That is what sets us apart from – I don’t know – third world dictatorships!? Or, it used to anyway. Based on the tactics, comments of posters, and supposed rights a house does or doesn’t have, these people were determined guilty long before the "SWAT” team even gets to the private property. Why can’t a person have their own video surveillance equipment to monitor who or what comes on their PRIVATE PROPERTY?. The "state” can video record citizens walking down the damn street, but they can’t monitor their own yard? Seems like a pretty F-ed up double standard. What would happen to me if I "disabled" a camera before I walked down a street? Maybe these people are guilty of breaking every law in the book - I don't know and neither did any of the SWAT team at the point they bashed down the door. However, "Peace Officers” DO NOT DETERMINE guilt and until the accused are convicted, they have EVERY right the LEO does that knocks down their door! If they don't this country is screwed. It's a screwed up situation all around. But if the current trend of LEO "no knock" military style searches continue, we will end up with an extremely horrible situation in this country where there will be a shoot out with both the LEO's and citizen's losing in the long run. And it will increase the speed at which we are turning into a complete "police state" with the divide between cops and citizens growing past a point it can be repaired. being kinda over dramatic there. everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. yes, LEO determines if you are guilty or not, always has. if you are guilty we arrest you and bring you to court to prove it. you don't goto court before you are arrested. there is no reason you cant have your own video system, no one has said you cant. there is a difference between public property and private property, I don't have the time or the patience to explain it to you right now. You really in LE? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 8:24:08 AM EST
[#18]
mafia gonna mafia
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 8:30:26 AM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's what I see. I see a warrant for theft and stolen property... with a high enough dollar amount to make it a felony. Multiple individuals at the residence, several of which have criminal records, including violent crimes. The two individuals who were arrested for "unrelated charges" were actually listed on the warrant. There are known to be weapons at the location, as an individual in that home is a known gun owner (and apparently hangs out with drugs users and violent criminals). <a href="http://s251.photobucket.com/user/TGrayman/media/Ankeny/Ankenywarrant_zpsff8b1468.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg286/TGrayman/Ankeny/Ankenywarrant_zpsff8b1468.jpg</a> It's at least a split-level home, with a basement, and outbuildings (detached garage). Here you can see officers headed to the outbuildings, while a female subject (presumably one of those listed on the warrant) is handcuffed in the basement. Note the officer standing half out of the frame: <a href="http://s251.photobucket.com/user/TGrayman/media/Ankeny/Ankenysearch_zpsb8f335e4.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg286/TGrayman/Ankeny/Ankenysearch_zpsb8f335e4.jpg</a> We see a screen-grab of the officer who disables the front-door camera... looks like a heavy-set white guy with glasses. I'm sure you can ID him with this grainy/blurry photo: <a href="http://s251.photobucket.com/user/TGrayman/media/Ankeny/frontdoorcop_zps1375a8c2.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg286/TGrayman/Ankeny/frontdoorcop_zps1375a8c2.jpg</a> I'm as big a proponent of surveillance cameras as you'll find anywhere... but I understand why the police wanted to disable them. They want them disabled for the very same reasons I would want mine ENABLED, were I facing a group of intruders or home-invaders. Cameras provide a major tactical advantage against intruders... and the police serving a warrant would want to remove that advantage from the suspects. Cameras provide: Detection (seeing something coming). Identification (are they cops or gangbangers?) Real-time intel (for capability, numbers, armament, movement) Evidence/Forensics (taken frame-by-frame for evidentiary purposes) Were I serving a warrant, there's no way I'd leave a camera unobstructed/unmolested, since it may be showing the bad guys the position/movement/approach/tactics of my team. As a general rule, you don't want any potential bad guys to see what you're doing. It's the very same thought process that occurs when police get upset at the local TV station showing a live shot from a hovering helicopter of the team moving into position. That's a good way to get men killed. As for a person on the warrant being a legal gun owner, you have to expect the police to plan around the worst-case scenario. The gun owner may have never committed a crime, but his friends sure seem prone to it. Once again, you're judged by the company you keep... and the police are going to plan for the contingency where that gun will be used against them. It's just the way it is. Bravo to the first post to make sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 8:33:37 AM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
like I said, the OPs video says one person in the home was arrested for being a drug dealer. drugs+known guns in the house= high risk. I dont know if they knew about the drugs before hand or not, I didnt read the warrant. They had no PC for drugs. The drug connection came up when they ran one of the occupants after making their "high risk" entry. They had CC Fraud + CHL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 8:39:52 AM EST
[#21]
Florida and federal law allow forcible entry for warrant service only when the officer has given reasonable notice of his purpose and authority and is denied entry. This means that absent exigent circumstances, people have to be given a reasonable time to answer the door. Far too often, this is not the case. At a bare minimum, all SW/AW entries should be audio and video recorded. There is no excuse for any debate over whether K&A was performed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 9:12:27 AM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: being kinda over dramatic there. everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. yes, LEO determines if you are guilty or not, always has. if you are guilty we arrest you and bring you to court to prove it. you don't goto court before you are arrested. there is no reason you cant have your own video system, no one has said you cant. there is a difference between public property and private property, I don't have the time or the patience to explain it to you right now. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Here is what I see. Apparently these people are NOT presumed innocent until proven guilty – or it certainly appears that way from several of the comments on this thread. LEO’s DO NOT DETERMINE if a person is guilty or not! That is what sets us apart from – I don’t know – third world dictatorships!? Or, it used to anyway. Based on the tactics, comments of posters, and supposed rights a house does or doesn’t have, these people were determined guilty long before the "SWAT” team even gets to the private property. Why can’t a person have their own video surveillance equipment to monitor who or what comes on their PRIVATE PROPERTY?. The "state” can video record citizens walking down the damn street, but they can’t monitor their own yard? Seems like a pretty F-ed up double standard. What would happen to me if I "disabled" a camera before I walked down a street? Maybe these people are guilty of breaking every law in the book - I don't know and neither did any of the SWAT team at the point they bashed down the door. However, "Peace Officers” DO NOT DETERMINE guilt and until the accused are convicted, they have EVERY right the LEO does that knocks down their door! If they don't this country is screwed. It's a screwed up situation all around. But if the current trend of LEO "no knock" military style searches continue, we will end up with an extremely horrible situation in this country where there will be a shoot out with both the LEO's and citizen's losing in the long run. And it will increase the speed at which we are turning into a complete "police state" with the divide between cops and citizens growing past a point it can be repaired. being kinda over dramatic there. everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. yes, LEO determines if you are guilty or not, always has. if you are guilty we arrest you and bring you to court to prove it. you don't goto court before you are arrested. there is no reason you cant have your own video system, no one has said you cant. there is a difference between public property and private property, I don't have the time or the patience to explain it to you right now. Uh, no. LE determines whether or not there is probable cause for an arrest. "Guilty" is a legal determination that LE is not qualified to make.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 9:14:25 AM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Florida and federal law allow forcible entry for warrant service only when the officer has given reasonable notice of his purpose and authority and is denied entry. This means that absent exigent circumstances, people have to be given a reasonable time to answer the door. Far too often, this is not the case. At a bare minimum, all SW/AW entries should be audio and video recorded. There is no excuse for any debate over whether K&A was performed. I agree. They do it with cell extractions at prisons for a reason. The same reasoning should apply with search and arrest warrants.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 9:20:16 AM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Cameras I have no problem with. A live feed to the county as it happens? No. Because, why? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 9:32:35 AM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree. They do it with cell extractions at prisons for a reason. The same reasoning should apply with search and arrest warrants. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Florida and federal law allow forcible entry for warrant service only when the officer has given reasonable notice of his purpose and authority and is denied entry. This means that absent exigent circumstances, people have to be given a reasonable time to answer the door. Far too often, this is not the case. At a bare minimum, all SW/AW entries should be audio and video recorded. There is no excuse for any debate over whether K&A was performed. I agree. They do it with cell extractions at prisons for a reason. The same reasoning should apply with search and arrest warrants. Seems like a legislative solution could be workable: 1. All warrant services required to be K&A unless warrant applicant convinces judicial officer of need for no knock. 2. All knock and announce warrants require single person (not a cacophony of a dozen folks at once) to loudly knock and announce, with "X" minutes of time for the occupants to voluntarily permit entry. 3. Police must record video evidence of # 2 above, and are strictly liable for damage to the residence/structure and resulting personal injury (e.g., child burned to a crisp by a flash bang) resulting from failing in the case of a knock and announce to provide the required time for the occupants to comply; police are immune from such liability if occupants do not provide access within the time provided. 4. In all cases where request is made for a no knock entry, a public advocate reviews and responds to the warrant application to present to the Court the arguments, if any, against a no knock under the facts alleged in the application. In my opinion evidence of lawful gun ownership should not in and of itself be cause to go in hot without a knock and announce. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 9:35:15 AM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: being kinda over dramatic there. everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. yes, LEO determines if you are guilty or not, always has. if you are guilty we arrest you and bring you to court to prove it. you don't goto court before you are arrested. <snip> Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Here is what I see. Apparently these people are NOT presumed innocent until proven guilty – or it certainly appears that way from several of the comments on this thread. LEO’s DO NOT DETERMINE if a person is guilty or not! That is what sets us apart from – I don’t know – third world dictatorships!? Or, it used to anyway.<snip> being kinda over dramatic there. everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. yes, LEO determines if you are guilty or not, always has. if you are guilty we arrest you and bring you to court to prove it. you don't goto court before you are arrested. <snip> I'm not sure if you actually believe that, or if you are just trying to elicit negative replies? If you actually believe that, I think you chose the wrong line of work because you don't belong in LE. I would also add, if you believe that you have a very poor understanding of your role as a part of our legal system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 9:39:41 AM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure if you actually believe that, or if you are just trying to elicit negative replies? If you actually believe that, I think you chose the wrong line of work because you don't belong in LE. I would also add, if you believe that you have a very poor understanding of your role as a part of our legal system. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Here is what I see. Apparently these people are NOT presumed innocent until proven guilty – or it certainly appears that way from several of the comments on this thread. LEO’s DO NOT DETERMINE if a person is guilty or not! That is what sets us apart from – I don’t know – third world dictatorships!? Or, it used to anyway.<snip> being kinda over dramatic there. everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. yes, LEO determines if you are guilty or not, always has. if you are guilty we arrest you and bring you to court to prove it. you don't goto court before you are arrested.
<snip>
I'm not sure if you actually believe that, or if you are just trying to elicit negative replies? If you actually believe that, I think you chose the wrong line of work because you don't belong in LE. I would also add, if you believe that you have a very poor understanding of your role as a part of our legal system. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 9:43:21 AM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Family calls Ankeny police raid excessive http://cmsimg.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=D2&Date=20140205&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=302050051&Ref=V1&MaxW=300&Border=0&Family-calls-Ankeny-police-raid-excessive http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20140205/NEWS01/302050051/?odyssey=nav|head&nclick_check=1 Oops |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 10:26:34 AM EST
[#29]
Just watched the Ankeny press conference. They have a different opinion than the O/P and thanks to the video they seized they haven video to corroborate their opinion. They did recover items they were looking for in addition to a meth pipe. When the police show up with a search warrant don't hide from them, they are coming in anyway.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 11:26:11 AM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just watched the Ankeny press conference. They have a different opinion than the O/P and thanks to the video they seized they haven video to corroborate their opinion. They did recover items they were looking for in addition to a meth pipe. When the police show up with a search warrant don't hide from them, they are coming in anyway. The chief is a dishonest d bag trying to cover his ass. They didn't give anyone a chance to open the door. He did try to throw out the "drug user" and "meth pipe" to justify their actions. You should be more afraid of police "tactical teams" than any criminal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 11:30:19 AM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The house had been legally seized by a warrant in keeping with the 4th. But do go on about things you know nothing about. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
no, but they should be disabled. from the video, external cameras were damaged, internal cameras were covered. your house doesnt have rights. covering the camera no more violates your rights then turning the lights off when we leave. Please reacquaint yourself with the Fourth Amendment, oinker. The house had been legally seized by a warrant in keeping with the 4th. But do go on about things you know nothing about. If you'd prefer, we could switch the the subject of spelling and punctuation... Tell you what: if my house deed doesn't declare my property as mine and not subject to destruction by an LEO, then your badge does not declare your cruiser as exempt from speed limits. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 11:35:47 AM EST
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cop tearing down the outside camera put his face right into it. He wasn't trying to hide his identity at all. Im not gonna defend the tearing down of cameras. But if you were trying to prevent a undercover officer from being recorded you wouldnt use the undercover officer to remove or cover the cameras. Someone else would do it first then call the UC guys on the phone when its clear to enter. Then they should be fired for not being thorough enough. They got two cameras out of...many. Quoted:
when you call all tools hammers you cant help but accuse people of treating every situation like a nail? Ah, yes - circular logic. You must have been very well trained by your captain on how to survive a shooting board. Quoted:
Fucking terrible. And to think we are actually paying for this. Pretty soon we'll all be asking for a big refund check. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 11:36:19 AM EST
[#33]
Quoted:being kinda over dramatic there. As opposed to what? Full regalia and a forced entry over credit card fraud? That's dramatic. Quoted:yes, LEO determines if you are guilty or not, always has. if you are guilty we arrest you and bring you to
court to prove it. You are just about the worst LEO I've ever encountered. Like, Chris Dorner bad. Quoted:I don't have the time or the patience cognitive ability to explain it to you right now. Fixed that for you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 11:40:41 AM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
May I correct you? You are suspected of committing a crime and you are arrested. You are Innocent until tried and convicted in a court – then you are guilty. BIG DIFFERENCE. Also, if anything, private property is MORE sacred than “public” property and should be treated as such. haha, now you guys what to play word games. leo's job, investigate crime, collect/examine evidence, determine if the subject did or did not do the crime. if I determine the subject DID do the crime they are arrested. what word would describe that finding that they did the crime? I dont arrest someone unless I know they are guilty. if I thought they were innocent I wouldnt arrest them. or should I just be arresting everyone that coulda done it and let the courts sort through it all? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 11:41:33 AM EST
[#35]
If some of these comments are from real LEO's then DAMN, no wonder people think you guys are black jack booted thugs!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 11:42:39 AM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Uh, no. LE determines whether or not there is probable cause (of what?) for an arrest. "Guilty" is a legal determination that LE is not qualified to make. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Here is what I see. Apparently these people are NOT presumed innocent until proven guilty – or it certainly appears that way from several of the comments on this thread. LEO’s DO NOT DETERMINE if a person is guilty or not! That is what sets us apart from – I don’t know – third world dictatorships!? Or, it used to anyway. Based on the tactics, comments of posters, and supposed rights a house does or doesn’t have, these people were determined guilty long before the "SWAT” team even gets to the private property. Why can’t a person have their own video surveillance equipment to monitor who or what comes on their PRIVATE PROPERTY?. The "state” can video record citizens walking down the damn street, but they can’t monitor their own yard? Seems like a pretty F-ed up double standard. What would happen to me if I "disabled" a camera before I walked down a street? Maybe these people are guilty of breaking every law in the book - I don't know and neither did any of the SWAT team at the point they bashed down the door. However, "Peace Officers” DO NOT DETERMINE guilt and until the accused are convicted, they have EVERY right the LEO does that knocks down their door! If they don't this country is screwed. It's a screwed up situation all around. But if the current trend of LEO "no knock" military style searches continue, we will end up with an extremely horrible situation in this country where there will be a shoot out with both the LEO's and citizen's losing in the long run. And it will increase the speed at which we are turning into a complete "police state" with the divide between cops and citizens growing past a point it can be repaired. being kinda over dramatic there. everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. yes, LEO determines if you are guilty or not, always has. if you are guilty we arrest you and bring you to court to prove it. you don't goto court before you are arrested.
there is no reason you cant have your own video system, no one has said you cant. there is a difference between public property and private property, I don't have the time or the patience to explain it to you right now. Uh, no. LE determines whether or not there is probable cause (of what?) for an arrest. "Guilty" is a legal determination that LE is not qualified to make. answer the question in blue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 11:43:53 AM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
haha, now you guys what to play word games. leo's job, investigate crime, collect/examine evidence, determine if the subject did or did not do the crime. if I determine the subject DID do the crime they are arrested. what word would describe that finding that they did the crime? I dont arrest someone unless I know they are guilty. if I thought they were innocent I wouldnt arrest them. or should I just be arresting everyone that coulda done it and let the courts sort through it all? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
May I correct you? You are suspected of committing a crime and you are arrested. You are Innocent until tried and convicted in a court – then you are guilty. BIG DIFFERENCE. Also, if anything, private property is MORE sacred than “public” property and should be treated as such. haha, now you guys what to play word games. leo's job, investigate crime, collect/examine evidence, determine if the subject did or did not do the crime. if I determine the subject DID do the crime they are arrested. what word would describe that finding that they did the crime? I dont arrest someone unless I know they are guilty. if I thought they were innocent I wouldnt arrest them. or should I just be arresting everyone that coulda done it and let the courts sort through it all? Maybe I'm not reading this right. Are you saying that every single person you arrest is guilty?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 11:46:50 AM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As opposed to what? Full regalia and a forced entry over credit card fraud? That's dramatic. You are just about the worst LEO I've ever encountered. Like, Chris Dorner bad. thats weird, I have tons of citizens who have called in to commend the way I conduct myself on the job, as well as several commendations from the city counsel. Fixed that for you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:being kinda over dramatic there. As opposed to what? Full regalia and a forced entry over credit card fraud? That's dramatic. Quoted:yes, LEO determines if you are guilty or not, always has. if you are guilty we arrest you and bring you to
court to prove it. You are just about the worst LEO I've ever encountered. Like, Chris Dorner bad. thats weird, I have tons of citizens who have called in to commend the way I conduct myself on the job, as well as several commendations from the city counsel. Quoted:I don't have the time or the patience cognitive ability to explain it to you right now. Fixed that for you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 11:46:54 AM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Link says it was not a SWAT team. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That was very close to a disaster. A SWAT raid for credit card fraud? And I say that as someone with a lot of friends in law enforcement, including a lot of tac team members. Link says it was not a SWAT team. SWAT stands for Special Weapons And Tactics… These days weapons and tactics such as these seem common, so I guess technically that report is correct… |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 11:47:53 AM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe I'm not reading this right. Are you saying that every single person you arrest is guilty? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
May I correct you? You are suspected of committing a crime and you are arrested. You are Innocent until tried and convicted in a court – then you are guilty. BIG DIFFERENCE. Also, if anything, private property is MORE sacred than “public” property and should be treated as such. haha, now you guys what to play word games. leo's job, investigate crime, collect/examine evidence, determine if the subject did or did not do the crime. if I determine the subject DID do the crime they are arrested. what word would describe that finding that they did the crime? I dont arrest someone unless I know they are guilty. if I thought they were innocent I wouldnt arrest them. or should I just be arresting everyone that coulda done it and let the courts sort through it all? Maybe I'm not reading this right. Are you saying that every single person you arrest is guilty? why would I arrest someone if I thought they were innocent of the charge? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 11:48:07 AM EST
[#41]
I do believe that is what he is saying. If he arrests a person they are for sure guilty or he would not have done so.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 11:48:30 AM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If some of these comments are from real LEO's then DAMN, no wonder people think you guys are black jack booted thugs!! This place will sour your view of LE in a hurry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 11:50:15 AM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I do believe that is what he is saying. If he arrests a person they are for sure guilty or he would not have done so. so you would prefer that LE go the "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks" route? I thought you kids didnt like the " you might beat the rap but not the ride" mentality? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 11:50:33 AM EST
[#44]
You guys beginning to get a picture of what Minnesota cops are like?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 11:51:46 AM EST
[#45]
Any cop who thinks such behavior is acceptable should not be a cop.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 11:52:05 AM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys beginning to get a picture of what Minnesota cops are like? yea, we dont arrest people we think are innocent and see if we can convict them. how evil of us
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 11:52:41 AM EST
[#47]
J75, you might want to rethink the kid part.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 11:52:44 AM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
why would I arrest someone if I thought they were innocent of the charge? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Maybe I'm not reading this right. Are you saying that every single person you arrest is guilty? why would I arrest someone if I thought they were innocent of the charge? The key difference, and it's not semantics, is between think and is. Has every person you have ever arrested been found guilty? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 11:53:27 AM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
why would I arrest someone if I thought they were innocent of the charge? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
May I correct you? You are suspected of committing a crime and you are arrested. You are Innocent until tried and convicted in a court – then you are guilty. BIG DIFFERENCE. Also, if anything, private property is MORE sacred than “public” property and should be treated as such. haha, now you guys what to play word games. leo's job, investigate crime, collect/examine evidence, determine if the subject did or did not do the crime. if I determine the subject DID do the crime they are arrested. what word would describe that finding that they did the crime? I dont arrest someone unless I know they are guilty. if I thought they were innocent I wouldnt arrest them. or should I just be arresting everyone that coulda done it and let the courts sort through it all? Maybe I'm not reading this right. Are you saying that every single person you arrest is guilty? why would I arrest someone if I thought they were innocent of the charge? What you think doesn't equal "guilty". YOU don't determine that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2014 11:54:50 AM EST
[#50]
Just how many years have you been on the beat J75??
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
