Supremes unanimously side with police, throw out so-called 'provocation doctrine'

[Baptist Believer]

You have this wrong. What I have done is not expressed to you the possibility that the persons inside the home may not actually be guilty. Here is why, when police go to homes in this manner they almost always know the violent history of these criminals.

Unless they enter the wrong home, or there are people in the home that have nothing to do with the "violet history" of the suspect.

The few times that they are wrong is insignificant to the danger posed by exposing their intents far to early.

You are making a judgment call here. I am not opposed to making a judgment call, but "no knock" warrants need to be rare and provided only with significant oversight.

Police should also uses every means at their disposal to gain intelligence about who is in the house and look for opportunities to arrest without a "no knock" warrant - if time permits. It's simply a pro-life position.

 

[Revmitchell]

Unless they enter the wrong home, or there are people in the home that have nothing to do with the "violet history" of the suspect.


You are making a judgment call here. I am not opposed to making a judgment call, but "no knock" warrants need to be rare and provided only with significant oversight.

Police should also uses every means at their disposal to gain intelligence about who is in the house and look for opportunities to arrest without a "no knock" warrant - if time permits. It's simply a pro-life position.

yes it is pro life. Our men in uniform have to put their lives on the line each and every time they serve theses warrants. They never know exactly what is on the other side. We need to support them and give them the tools they need to stay alive.

Further failure to do so will mean a decrease in those who are willing to do the work. We are already seeing the Ferguson effect and it is not good.

 

[Happy]

The founders respected the privacy of the home. They also recognized that the home could harbor criminal activity. That is why they allowed the warrant provision.

Sure. And? No one was arguing the warrant provision. The point was about, busting in WITHOUT warning. Warrants require they be given the person, for them to review what the authorities have been lawfully authorized to do...(and can therefore direct the authorities to search for what is listed on the Warrant,) BEFORE action of the authorities.....yes?

 

[Happy]

yes it is pro life. Our men in uniform have to put their lives on the line each and every time they serve theses warrants. They never know exactly what is on the other side. We need to support them and give them the tools they need to stay alive.

Further failure to do so will mean a decrease in those who are willing to do the work. We are already seeing the Ferguson effect and it is not good.

Personally, I have NO problem with an Officer, serving a warrant, to be unholstered and prepared.
True that, they do not know what is behind the door.
Neither does a REPO man, or bank teller, or a store clerk, or a person in their home, know who might open a can of whoop...&&& or take a shot at them.
Some JOBS are dangerous. And some dangerous JOBS are IMO, are NOT justly compensated for the specific times they are being exposed to such danger.
Give them the tools, the authority....yes, as long as it does not supersede the Constitution.

 

[TCassidy]

Let's get back to the SCOTUS decision.

1. The police did not have a warrant to enter/search the Mendez home.

2. The police did not have probable cause to enter the Mendez home.

3. There were no exigent circumstances which would have allowed the police to enter/search the Mendez home.

4. The police did not have permission to enter the Mendez home.

5. The police did not announce themselves before or upon entering the Mendez home.

The 9th Circuit found that the officers did not use excessive force in shooting Mr. Mendez because he did, upon seeing them, point a BB gun at them. They, at the time, had no way of knowing it was only a BB gun.

The 9th Circuit found, however, that (1) the officers intentionally or recklessly provoked a violent confrontation and (2) the provocation was an independent Fourth Amendment violation. Not withstanding the officers had a tip from a "confidential informant" that a wanted criminal may have been seen in the vicinity of the Mendez home.

In other words, the confrontation would not have happened had the officers not intentionally or recklessly provoked the confrontation by doing all 5 of the actions listed above.

The 9th Circuit found that the above listed 5 actions constituted an independent 4th amendment violation making them liable for the subsequent consequences.

SCOTUS disagreed and vacated the lower court's ruling and remanded the case back to the lower court for reconsideration.

This is another case where the idiotic qualified immunity doctrine has been stretched to cover something it was never intended to cover.

 

[Reynolds]

The founders respected the privacy of the home. They also recognized that the home could harbor criminal activity. That is why they allowed the warrant provision.

How much evidence can they destroy in that time? You as a tax payer want to pay a SWAT team 5,000 man hours to lay seige to a house?

 

[Reynolds]

You have this wrong. What I have done is not expressed to you the possibility that the persons inside the home may not actually be guilty. Here is why, when police go to homes in this manner they almost always know the violent history of these criminals. The few times that they are wrong is insignificant to the danger posed by exposing their intents far to early.

You are correct. I have no idea how some people think no knlock works. Acfiant of the Search warrant has show why a no knock is needed. A judge then has to review that evidence and sign a separate. Section on the warrant that authorizes the no knock.

 

[Don]

"A federal court granted damages to Mendez and Garcia on the warrantless and unannounced entry claims."

I agree with SCOTUS on the excessive force ruling; not a valid claim. When the officers saw a weapon, they had every right to defend themselves.

If I were the occupant, I should have the right to defend my family and myself when armed intruders enter my home unannounced.

So we're in a bit of a pickle. If both sides can be justifed, who's at fault? There is NO good solution here.

 

[Reynolds]

Sure. And? No one was arguing the warrant provision. The point was about, busting in WITHOUT warning. Warrants require they be given the person, for them to review what the authorities have been lawfully authorized to do...(and can therefore direct the authorities to search for what is listed on the Warrant,) BEFORE action of the authorities.....yes?

It had wandered off course and was dealing with no knocks.

 

[Reynolds]

"A federal court granted damages to Mendez and Garcia on the warrantless and unannounced entry claims."

I agree with SCOTUS on the excessive force ruling; not a valid claim. When the officers saw a weapon, they had every right to defend themselves.

If I were the occupant, I should have the right to defend my family and myself when armed intruders enter my home unannounced.

So we're in a bit of a pickle. If both sides can be justifed, who's at fault? There is NO good solution here.

This is kind of a very rare case. Like when a Dr. does not do $50000.00 worth of testing because the chances are 1 in a million you have a rare condition and you later turn it to be that 1 in a million.

 

[Happy]

This is kind of a very rare case. Like when a Dr. does not do $50000.00 worth of testing because the chances are 1 in a million you have a rare condition and you later turn it to be that 1 in a million.

True ~ a rare situation. It was simply such rare situation that this thread was about.

True ~ the bad apple casts a poor reflection on the whole.

True ~ None are "perfect", regardless of the type of job they do.

True ~ No one here is advocating harm toward police.

It is simply a matter of good VS evil and no one but God has the perfect remedy.