cops murder doctor in his own home

SmarterthanYou said:
Did nobody watch the body cam? His mistake was definitely opening the door. They asked him outside because it was the ONLY legal way to arrest him, since they did not have a warrant. It wasn't until the dumbass rookie grabbed him that resistance started. And the fight wasn't at the door, it was inside the living room of the house that the cops had no warrant to enter.

Now, the important part here shows how most of you have accepted the fact that the government has made you their slave, too afraid to fight for your rights. Generally, a cop will not end up in prison if they shoot you, even illegally, and you all accept that under the idiot premise that cops are mostly 'good'.
Click to expand...
I would not have answered the door. This doesn't change that when they cross the threshold resisting and grabbing a gun instead of complying to save your life just makes sure you dead. Live, get the body cam, sue. Stop being stupid.

Being dead and right is not better than being alive and right then getting paid. Especially when they will not go to jail because the man grabbed a gun.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
again, your bias pro government is noted, however, you refuse to acknowledge the reality of law enforcement and only your infantile belief in it has you thinking this crap. Reality dictates, as well as history, that if they had a warrant, they would not have bothered to coax him outside, they would have just grabbed him.

the dr NEVER fleed in to the house, he had been sleeping inside when the cops knocked on the door.

Again, payton vs. new york. read it.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that gratuitous ad hominem.

What Lanis was doing prior to answering the door is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

As for Payton v. New York, you misread it. You didn't grasp that the officers didn't enter the house to arrest Lanis. They did that at the door when he opened it. He was then under arrest. His submission to that arrest isn't relevant either in terms of the officers entering the house.

What counts is, once arrested--which Lanis was--the officers had a duty to restrain and take him into custody. If someone resists arrest and flees the officers, they can institute a pursuit of that individual, including into their home. They aren't entering to make an arrest. They are entering to pursue a fleeing suspect that is already under arrest.


In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court justices ruled that unless there is an emergency, police cannot force their way into a misdemeanor suspect’s home without first getting a warrant.

The ruling does not apply to felony pursuits.

www.eastcountymagazine.org

SUPREME COURT LIMITS POLICE ABILITY TO PURSUE MISDEMEANOR SUSPECT INTO HOME WITHOUT A WARRANT

By Miriam Raftery Photo: Supreme Court building, CC by NC-ND June 23, 2021 (Washington D.C.) – In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court justices ruled that unless there is an emergency, police cannot force their way into a misdemeanor suspect’s home without first getting a warrant. The rul
www.eastcountymagazine.org www.eastcountymagazine.org

In United States v. Mendenhall, the Supreme Court held that someone is seized when, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed they were not free to leave.

uclawreview.org

Warrantless Arrest Inside the Home: Constructive Entry Under the Fourth Amendment

In this article, Christian Bugher discusses the current circuit split on whether a constitutional violation occurs when police constructively enter a suspect’s home without a warrant.
uclawreview.org uclawreview.org

Lanis' coming to the door and the police, without entering his home telling him he is under arrest means he is now held and not free to leave. His fleeing police turned it into a felony flight situation and the police were free to initiate a pursuit. It would be absurd to think that someone the police have told is under arrest could simply retreat into their home, close the door, and the police were subsequently unable to affect the arrest they had initiated.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
well, you're certainly entitled to be as big of an idiot as you want to be.
Click to expand...
'SmarterThanYou' lmao.

Is that supposed to be one of those adorable ironic nicknames, like calling a 400-pound sumo wrestler 'Tiny' or a 7-foot giant 'Shorty'? Because damn, if that’s the flex, the irony’s doing all the heavy lifting for you. Bless your heart.

Seriously though, is that really the best you can do?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
well, you're certainly entitled to be as big of an idiot as you want to be.
Click to expand...
Is your proof they didn't have a warrant is because they ask him to step outside?


Police ask people to step outside

Reasons for the request
  • Officer safety: This is a primary reason for the request, as it reduces the risk of the officer being harmed by an occupant who may be reaching for a weapon or making sudden movements.

And their concern for safety was legit...he had a gun


  • "Castle Doctrine" exceptions are limited: While many states have "castle doctrine" laws that allow the use of deadly force against intruders in your home, these laws typically do not apply to clearly identified police officers, even if their entry is later found to be unlawful.

If police enter your home unlawfully (without a valid warrant, probable cause, or your consent), the evidence they collect may be ruled inadmissible in court, and you can pursue a civil lawsuit. You cannot, however, use force to resist the entry

Do not resist: Physical resistance or the display of a weapon can quickly escalate the situation into a violent confrontation.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
I would not have answered the door.
Click to expand...
I can understand what you are saying, and you are not all wrong, but I think you are looking at this the wrong way.

There was an arrest warrant out for him. He was going to jail, sooner or later. What he should have been looking to do was find the least dangerous, least embarrassing way to surrender to the police, while hiring a good lawyer to defend him. The place to fight this is in the courts. Even if he avoids being arrested at his house, he has to go to work sooner or later, and the police could arrest him at work. That makes him look bad in front of an employer. The quicker he can peacefully be arrested, the more innocent and reasonable he looks, which will help him get bail.

He did commit a crime that could be called attempted murder, but also could be called a minor non-violent misdemeanor. He was a white doctor, so a judge, and everyone else, is going to be very understanding of him. If he has peacefully surrendered, but refused to talk to police, he could have very well have gotten off with a warning.

Clearly, he was making mistakes in life. This all should have been a warning call for him. Threatening his estranged wife is not going to get her back. He should have been moving on. He had a good education, so moving on would have been easy.

There are extreme circumstances where I would not surrender, but this was not it. If he did not surrender, the other option would be to run as far and as fast as he could. That would have meant giving up being a doctor, and his nice house. It is not something he would want.

Fighting is an even more extreme option. Even had he killed both the police they sent for him, what next? There are thousands more police that they could send, and at that point they would send them.

No, just surrender and fight it in court.
 
Damocles said:
I would not have answered the door. This doesn't change that when they cross the threshold resisting and grabbing a gun instead of complying to save your life just makes sure you dead. Live, get the body cam, sue. Stop being stupid.

Being dead and right is not better than being alive and right then getting paid. Especially when they will not go to jail because the man grabbed a gun.
Click to expand...
all that compliance and settlement does is ensure that government can get away with violating your rights, which they can then start deeming worthless..............Maybe more cops/government agents should be killed
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Thank you for that gratuitous ad hominem.

What Lanis was doing prior to answering the door is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

As for Payton v. New York, you misread it. You didn't grasp that the officers didn't enter the house to arrest Lanis. They did that at the door when he opened it. He was then under arrest. His submission to that arrest isn't relevant either in terms of the officers entering the house.

What counts is, once arrested--which Lanis was--the officers had a duty to restrain and take him into custody. If someone resists arrest and flees the officers, they can institute a pursuit of that individual, including into their home. They aren't entering to make an arrest. They are entering to pursue a fleeing suspect that is already under arrest.


In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court justices ruled that unless there is an emergency, police cannot force their way into a misdemeanor suspect’s home without first getting a warrant.

The ruling does not apply to felony pursuits.

www.eastcountymagazine.org

SUPREME COURT LIMITS POLICE ABILITY TO PURSUE MISDEMEANOR SUSPECT INTO HOME WITHOUT A WARRANT

By Miriam Raftery Photo: Supreme Court building, CC by NC-ND June 23, 2021 (Washington D.C.) – In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court justices ruled that unless there is an emergency, police cannot force their way into a misdemeanor suspect’s home without first getting a warrant. The rul
www.eastcountymagazine.org www.eastcountymagazine.org

In United States v. Mendenhall, the Supreme Court held that someone is seized when, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed they were not free to leave.

uclawreview.org

Warrantless Arrest Inside the Home: Constructive Entry Under the Fourth Amendment

In this article, Christian Bugher discusses the current circuit split on whether a constitutional violation occurs when police constructively enter a suspect’s home without a warrant.
uclawreview.org uclawreview.org

Lanis' coming to the door and the police, without entering his home telling him he is under arrest means he is now held and not free to leave. His fleeing police turned it into a felony flight situation and the police were free to initiate a pursuit. It would be absurd to think that someone the police have told is under arrest could simply retreat into their home, close the door, and the police were subsequently unable to affect the arrest they had initiated.
Click to expand...
ROFL, telling me I read the decision wrong while you give a completely incorrect analysis is hilarious.

You, AGAIN, make up facts where there are none. there was no pursuit, no matter how hard you feel you need to believe that. there was no pursuit, so get that 'exigent' bullshit out your head. the cops NEVER pursued Lanis from the outside to the inside of his house. He never crossed the threshold, but the cops unconstitutionally did so.



thos
 
volsrocks said:
Is your proof they didn't have a warrant is because they ask him to step outside?


Police ask people to step outside

Reasons for the request
  • Officer safety: This is a primary reason for the request, as it reduces the risk of the officer being harmed by an occupant who may be reaching for a weapon or making sudden movements.

And their concern for safety was legit...he had a gun


  • "Castle Doctrine" exceptions are limited: While many states have "castle doctrine" laws that allow the use of deadly force against intruders in your home, these laws typically do not apply to clearly identified police officers, even if their entry is later found to be unlawful.

If police enter your home unlawfully (without a valid warrant, probable cause, or your consent), the evidence they collect may be ruled inadmissible in court, and you can pursue a civil lawsuit. You cannot, however, use force to resist the entry

Do not resist: Physical resistance or the display of a weapon can quickly escalate the situation into a violent confrontation.
Click to expand...
It's nice to know that you feel that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply any longer, nor do supreme court decisions, since you didn't bother to read payton
 
volsrocks said:
Is your proof they didn't have a warrant is because they ask him to step outside?


Police ask people to step outside

Reasons for the request
  • Officer safety: This is a primary reason for the request, as it reduces the risk of the officer being harmed by an occupant who may be reaching for a weapon or making sudden movements.

And their concern for safety was legit...he had a gun


  • "Castle Doctrine" exceptions are limited: While many states have "castle doctrine" laws that allow the use of deadly force against intruders in your home, these laws typically do not apply to clearly identified police officers, even if their entry is later found to be unlawful.

If police enter your home unlawfully (without a valid warrant, probable cause, or your consent), the evidence they collect may be ruled inadmissible in court, and you can pursue a civil lawsuit. You cannot, however, use force to resist the entry

Do not resist: Physical resistance or the display of a weapon can quickly escalate the situation into a violent confrontation.
Click to expand...
We already know that you're a badge blower, but reality dictates a couple of things.

1. When police have acted entirely appropriate and well within all of the laws, they will trip over themselves releasing all video and paper trail evidence to show that they did nothing wrong. If they were well within all the laws on this case, they would have had that warrant plastered all over the media to show/say that they did nothing wrong.

2. when police have clearly done something that either was totally unconstitutional or a complete violation of law, they will almost always hold back whatever evidence shows their wrongdoing or ignore a part that shows they were wrong, i.e. not handing out a warrant to the media to show that they did nothing wrong.

Exemptions of laws for government agents...........If you approve of letting government agents ignore the Constitution, laws of the land, or court decisions because the person they arrested, beat/abused, or murdered was a criminal suspect, you endorse and promote the slavery of citizens.

There is no other explanation.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
We already know that you're a badge blower, but reality dictates a couple of things.

1. When police have acted entirely appropriate and well within all of the laws, they will trip over themselves releasing all video and paper trail evidence to show that they did nothing wrong. If they were well within all the laws on this case, they would have had that warrant plastered all over the media to show/say that they did nothing wrong.

2. when police have clearly done something that either was totally unconstitutional or a complete violation of law, they will almost always hold back whatever evidence shows their wrongdoing or ignore a part that shows they were wrong, i.e. not handing out a warrant to the media to show that they did nothing wrong.

Exemptions of laws for government agents...........If you approve of letting government agents ignore the Constitution, laws of the land, or court decisions because the person they arrested, beat/abused, or murdered was a criminal suspect, you endorse and promote the slavery of citizens.

There is no other explanation.
Click to expand...
blablabla

just know, you can act like a raging meth head online, but you say someone is a badge blower in the real world and you would be tasting dirt


you aren't smart. you aren't tough. you are just a meth head loser
 
zymurgy said:
blablabla

just know, you can act like a raging meth head online, but you say someone is a badge blower in the real world and you would be tasting dirt


you aren't smart. you aren't tough. you are just a meth head loser
Click to expand...
I'd be tasting dirt????? pfffft, bring it on, fuckstick. don't be mad because I debunked all your shit, just fucking learn better.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
all that compliance and settlement does is ensure that government can get away with violating your rights, which they can then start deeming worthless..............Maybe more cops/government agents should be killed
Click to expand...
No, what it does is ensure you are alive and that they pay for violating your rights. This is how policy is made, when the officers f*ck up and it costs the department funds. You may not like the idea, but the time to litigate is not through your open front door.

Drawing a gun on them, then fighting them only ensured he would be more likely dead in the end, without any path for restitution for the violation of his rights. Exercise the first of your rights, remain silent. Do not answer the door.

Getting angry after you are dead will not teach them anything.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I'd be tasting dirt????? pfffft, bring it on, fuckstick. don't be mad because I debunked all your shit, just fucking learn better.
Click to expand...
yes. you are a keyboard warrior and an in person soy boy

fuck off meth head loser

people have been more than patient with your brand of retarded posting
 
Damocles said:
No, what it does is ensure you are alive and that they pay for violating your rights. This is how policy is made, when the officers f*ck up and it costs the department funds. You may not like the idea, but the time to litigate is not through your open front door.

Drawing a gun on them, then fighting them only ensured he would be more likely dead in the end, without any path for restitution for the violation of his rights. Exercise the first of your rights, remain silent. Do not answer the door.

Getting angry after you are dead will not teach them anything.
Click to expand...
again, this is what I call begging for slavery. The government forces upon the citizenry to bow down and comply with any and all edicts, at the point of a gun..............and your only recourse is through that very government.................it's almost like the government, itself, came up with the threat of lethal force to protect itself from all the bad things that they do to us...................
 
SmarterthanYou said:
again, this is what I call begging for slavery. The government forces upon the citizenry to bow down and comply with any and all edicts, at the point of a gun..............and your only recourse is through that very government.................it's almost like the government, itself, came up with the threat of lethal force to protect itself from all the bad things that they do to us...................
Click to expand...
Again. This is what I call begging for death. You punish them when the time for litigation is and not at the front door of your house and not with a firearm and resistance. It never serves to ignore how dead you will be and think you somehow are saving the day.

The reality, me not opening my door would have had them leave. I would then control the situation and timing of my arrest. My advice is good advice. Do not open the door when they come knocking.

Your advice seems to be to fight and die and then they'll learn somehow... but not that day.... somehow... someway.... hopefully when everyone becomes ignorant of their own death.

In my scenario, I live, I did not comply, nobody is shot at, I am not arrested. In yours. I am dead but I fought for what was "right" by not complying.

In both of those scenarios compliance was not a thing that I would do. However in only one did I survive to teach them a lesson.
 
Damocles said:
Again. This is what I call begging for death. You punish them when the time for litigation is and not at the front door of your house and not with a firearm and resistance. It never serves to ignore how dead you will be and think you somehow are saving the day.

The reality, me not opening my door would have had them leave. I would then control the situation and timing of my arrest. My advice is good advice. Do not open the door when they come knocking.

Your advice seems to be to fight and die and then they'll learn somehow... but not that day.... somehow... someway.... hopefully when everyone becomes ignorant of their own death.

In my scenario, I live, I did not comply, nobody is shot at, I am not arrested. In yours. I am dead but I fought for what was "right" by not complying.

In both of those scenarios compliance was not a thing that I would do. However in only one did I survive to teach them a lesson.
Click to expand...
I agree that you should never open your door to the police. NEVER. If they then have that actual warrant, not opening the door isn't going to stop them.

In your scenario, you've left your fate of being unlawfully arrested in the hands of the very government that unlawfully arrested you.........how sensical is that? yes, you're alive, but maybe that judge loves cops, so he absolves them of any wrongdoing. Now you're in jail to stay, even though your rights were clearly violated. On the off chance that qualified immunity is overcome and you can actually sue those individual officers, they suffer no punishment. The entity that employed them pays insurance premiums, that YOU paid for through taxes, to cover any settlement awards or damages awarded by a jury. If, for some reason, they end up being shown that they were in the wrong, their union contract allows them to resign in leiu of being fired, saving their years for pension, and they just end up hired by another agency............or as a complete fuck you to the public, and you who were wronged, those officers stay hired and get promoted.

it's a shit show where the people are only offered the illusion of maintaining power, where they actually have none.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you would never be able to keep up with me. Your IQ is probably half of mine.
Click to expand...
derp derp

you have went on for pages and pages about a made up fact. you have zero knowledge of the issue of a lack of warrant

you are the most pathetic soy boy I have ever encountered. a male Karen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top