"I don't need no warrant, (expletive)" ... Boom, headshot!

[Duncan]

To appropriate not to post ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ

 

[Garb]

I can only speak for myself.
I never lost a case in Court.
My theory was that if I wasn't convinced a jury would convict someone, I didn't make the arrest.
I may have let some guilty person get away with something, but I never had to worry about sending an innocent person to prison.
Unfortunately some of the "Officer discretion" that I enjoyed twenty years ago has been eroded away by over zealous Administrators who are more interested in kissing the rear ends of the "Powers that be." and keeping their cushy desk jobs, than seeing that Justice is served.

That's a huge +1 in my book. It's too bad they aren't teaching that to the rookies.

 

[Garb]

I don't claim to be a Constitutional expert, just that through education I know a little more than the average person. I'm wrong, and admit it, quite often.

The difference is that I know what is patently incorrect, and I know how the process works. I understand legal tenants, precedents, English common law, and case law. I understand how our political system is designed to work and how it really works based upon actual history, not a romanticized notion of how I wish it would work.

Oh, and I understand that something in the Constitution can't be unconstitutional. That's a biggie.

You diminish people. If it weren't for that, you'd be a lot better at educating and persuading people. That's all I'm gonna say anymore on the subject.

 

[88GT]

The problem with reading War And Peace in English, or any language other than Russian, is that you have to rely on the translator to give an accurate rendering of the work. Also there are certain nuances in every language that can't be translated effectively into another language. You can't possibly understand the authors true intent and meaning unless you understand his/her language.
The same applies to written law. It is written in Lawyerese and certain phrases and Latin words are interpreted differently by Lawyers and Judges than by the General Public.

I disagree. No language is so esoteric that there is no method of conveying the point in a second language.

However, your argument for translation is no different when someone well-schooled in all things law attempts to educate someone who is not. Interpretation and a proper reading of the original is paramount to being able to understand what it actually says. Relaying to others in a language they can understand that still preserves the nuances of the original is only part of the skill.

But regardless of how well a person does parts 1 and 2 above, simultaneously implying that the recipient of your message is stupid and uneducated and doesn't know his ass from his mouth pretty much renders moot anything else you might be trying to share.

There are several legal eagles on this board who can correct misinformation and still make the audience feel like the debate was a draw. And then there are others who apparently never really grasped kindergarten's fundamental rule of how to treat others and feel that part and parcel of correcting the person is making him feel small and ignorant.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

You diminish people. If it weren't for that, you'd be a lot better at educating and persuading people. That's all I'm gonna say anymore on the subject.

People diminish themselves. You're only a victim if you allow it. I have people tell me I'm a f****ng idiot from time to time. Not because I don't know something. Ignorance can be remedied. Rather, because every once in a while I choose to cling to my ignorance to the point of upsurdity.

Thick skin man. It's the Interzweb.

I disagree. No language is so esoteric that there is no method of conveying the point in a second language.

However, your argument for translation is no different when someone well-schooled in all things law attempts to educate someone who is not. Interpretation and a proper reading of the original is paramount to being able to understand what it actually says. Relaying to others in a language they can understand that still preserves the nuances of the original is only part of the skill.

But regardless of how well a person does parts 1 and 2 above, simultaneously implying that the recipient of your message is stupid and uneducated and doesn't know his ass from his mouth pretty much renders moot anything else you might be trying to share.

There are several legal eagles on this board who can correct misinformation and still make the audience feel like the debate was a draw. And then there are others who apparently never really grasped kindergarten's fundamental rule of how to treat others and feel that part and parcel of correcting the person is making him feel small and ignorant.

And there are other people (nudge, nudge) who from time to time vicerate others with claws and fangs fully exposed.

 

[Wabatuckian]

More "us vs them."

Why do I never see good cop stories?

This wouldn't have made news if the cop sat down and gave the kid some counseling...

Josh

 

[NYFelon]

More "us vs them."

Why do I never see good cop stories?

This wouldn't have made news if the cop sat down and gave the kid some counseling...

Josh

I'd say because there's a teeny-tiny, very fine line between ascertaining the facts and filing a report, and even making an arrest if necessary, and hauling leather and blowing a person's brains out over a comment.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

A general learning moment for me here. There are two (2) issues I would like clarified in some detail please:

Issue #1) It appears from what I have read that Mr. Rodriguez was the legal owner of the property. IF this is the case and he told the LEO's to leave his property - by what authority could they remain barring exigent circumstances? I understand that if the LEO "heard someone screaming in the back room" then they would have a very legal foot to stand on, but just investigating an alleged complaint by someone who has no legal right to the property I don't get...???

Issue #2) From my limited reading of Arizona Law the officer is probably guilty of breaking the law. My research source is:

13-410 Justification; use of deadly physical force in law enforcement :: Title 13 - Criminal Code :: 2010 Arizona Code :: Arizona Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

IIRC in Indiana lethal force is only allowed of LEOs IF the LEO has reason to believe that the escapee poses a real risk to society. So, Jeffrey Dahmer = Shoot in back / Bob the Check Fraud guy = chase until caught or gets away.

Also in Indiana it is legal IIRC for ANY employee of a prison or jail to use lethal force to stop ANY inmate attempting to escape. Orange jumpsuit running could be anything, so orange jumpsuit running = shoot on sight!

As a side thought I didn't read anything that the officer testifying against Officer Chrisman is his partner. I thought it was two (2) separate officers responding to the same complaint. Not partners, but just same department. Did I miss something?

All in all this is a terrible tragedy for everyone involved. The mother is going to live with this for the rest of her life. The credibility of the police department will be undermined for years to come. Mr. Rodriguez lost his life for no good reason.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Actually, he does. Anyone living in a house can tell officers to leave. He could especially, since it was in his name.

Wrong. Any resident of a dwelling can authorize police entry into that dwelling, without a warrant.

You are correct, but also any resident can also refuse police entry.

You might want to see Georgia v Randolph.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
Held: In the circumstances here at issue, a physically present co-occupant's stated refusal to permit entry renders warrantless entry and search unreasonable and invalid as to him.

I'm wrong, and admit it, quite often.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

To All,

A general learning moment for me here. There are two (2) issues I would like clarified in some detail please:

Issue #1) It appears from what I have read that Mr. Rodriguez was the legal owner of the property. IF this is the case and he told the LEO's to leave his property - by what authority could they remain barring exigent circumstances? I understand that if the LEO "heard someone screaming in the back room" then they would have a very legal foot to stand on, but just investigating an alleged complaint by someone who has no legal right to the property I don't get...???

Issue #2) From my limited reading of Arizona Law the officer is probably guilty of breaking the law. My research source is:

13-410 Justification; use of deadly physical force in law enforcement :: Title 13 - Criminal Code :: 2010 Arizona Code :: Arizona Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

IIRC in Indiana lethal force is only allowed of LEOs IF the LEO has reason to believe that the escapee poses a real risk to society. So, Jeffrey Dahmer = Shoot in back / Bob the Check Fraud guy = chase until caught or gets away.

Also in Indiana it is legal IIRC for ANY employee of a prison or jail to use lethal force to stop ANY inmate attempting to escape. Orange jumpsuit running could be anything, so orange jumpsuit running = shoot on sight!

As a side thought I didn't read anything that the officer testifying against Officer Chrisman is his partner. I thought it was two (2) separate officers responding to the same complaint. Not partners, but just same department. Did I miss something?

All in all this is a terrible tragedy for everyone involved. The mother is going to live with this for the rest of her life. The credibility of the police department will be undermined for years to come. Mr. Rodriguez lost his life for no good reason.

Regards,

Doug

Just because he said he owned the trailer doesn't make it so. They were granted entry by one resident. Then it's a matter of investigating facts.

Cops called for a burglery in progress. Do you want the bad guy to just say "It's my house GTFO" without providing any proof?

I read the entire police report. If everything was true, Chrisman should rot in prison the rest of his life before burning in hell the rest of eternity.

Arizona isn't subject to the rulings of the Georgia Supreme Court. Indiana's Supreme Court just ruled the opposite way a few weeks ago. Both precidents are irrelevent in Arizona.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Arizona isn't subject to the rulings of the Georgia Supreme Court. Indiana's Supreme Court just ruled the opposite way a few weeks ago. Both precidents are irrelevent in Arizona.

Except for one thing, it was decided by SCOTUS. Not just the Georgia Supreme Court. So no the precedent is not irrelevant in Arizona.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Except for one thing, it was decided by SCOTUS. Not just the Georgia Supreme Court. So no the precedent is not irrelevant in Arizona.

I stand corrected.

I stopped reading at the cited link, which was heard by the Georgia Supreme Court. I didn't follow it to the SCOTUS ruling.

There you go. You win. I was wrong.