Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire SWAT kills Marine in his home

And yes, the insurance companies keep attorneys handy for all sorts of things, not just LEO. I talked to an insurance rep once about it. Most of their claims are because potholes messed up people's car alignment.

Exactly, you can argue the reasonableness of it as seen by you...But they didn't violate what the SCOTUS has set as a precedent.

Maybe so. Can't comment on that point for lack of on hand information, but it means next to nothing to me either way. If the SCOTUS authorizes a police state maneuver in violation of the original intent of the Fourth Amendment, that doesn't make it any less a police state maneuver in violation of the original intent of the Fourth Amendment. The law in any piece of legislation, or any clause of the Constitution, is found exclusively in the original intent of the framers, not in the post hoc "interpretation" (for "public policy considerations") of the Supreme Court. The latter, to the extent that it departs from original intent, constitutes a form of despotism, i.e., that imposed by a group of specially anointed men in black robes.

And here's another for you... Young VS City of Killeen

If Young's movements gave Olson cause to believe that there was a threat of serious physical harm, Olson's use of deadly force was not a constitutional violation. Tennessee v. Garner, --- U.S. at ----, 105 S.Ct. at 1701, 85 L.Ed.2d at 9-10. The only fault found against Olson was his negligence in creating a situation where the danger of such a mistake would exist. We hold that no right is guaranteed by federal law that one will be free from circumstances where he will be endangered by the misinterpretation of his acts.

Even though the officer made procedural mistakes leading up to the use of force, the reasonableness of the use of force is determined by the facts and circumstances then known to the officer (Graham V Connor) and not the decisions that were made that led up to the use of force.

Granted, that came out of the 5th Circuit...I doubt the 9th (Arizona) would have ruled similarly.

This is starting to get a lot of national attention.

AND the cops are LYING out there teeth.



http://abcnews.go.com/US/tucson-swat-team-defends-shooting-iraq-marine-veteran/story?id=13640112


This is nothing but MURDER.

Just from the what the aritcle/wife stated.

He had enough time to be woke up, comprehend what was going on, tell his wife to get in a closet, get his AR, possibly load the AR and then make a decision on what he was going to do with that AR.

How much more time do you think they should have given him? Should they have waited on him to make breakfast?

He had all the time he needed to decide if he or his wife were going to open that door.

Dink

How many times do you think they should have come back and knocked on the door? 5? 10? How long would it have taken him to get rid of whatever they looking for?

It was not a execution order. The suspect and his wife made the choices that caused this to happen. They could have walked to the front door and opened it but they did not.

Dink

And then the cops murdered him.


Now the cop spin begins.



What Marine doesn't have guns?

The man worked night shift at a copper mine.

If they needed to take him into custody for whatever reason, it would have been easy enough to do so when he was getting off work.

The craziness that's going on with the police in this country is going to come to a bad end one of these days.

Your exactly right Bristoe!

Exactly my point...

What you're doing is putting the success of prosecution ahead of the life a man and his family who are presumed innocent before the law. Our nation was established for one reason, i.e., to ensure that our rights are defended, not to ensure that prosecutors can have success in putting people behind bars for victimless activities.

PS How many times does UPS have to knock? If they have to knock more than twice, should they smash the door in to deliver their package?

I guess I shouldn't have assumed you two understand what is meant by "begging the question."

When was the last time UPS was looking for evidence?. When was the last time a UPS driver arrested someone?

He is still presumed innocent until trial but that does not mean that there was not dope, police uniforms or illegal guns in the residence.

Dink

So all the guys have to do to avoid the search warrant is never answer the door? Thats sounds like college kids on a loud party call...

Blue is correct as usual...

Agreed...

It was a search warrant not an arrest warrant...

There's a huge gap between smashing down doors, guns drawn, because someone's in the shower or asleep, and allowing someone to use the ploy you're suggesting to perpetually escape a warrant. Reason lies somewhere in the middle, I think.

Doesn't matter. Present him with the search warrant as he's leaving work, then invite him to come with you to unlock the door. If he then chooses not to, inform him that you're going in whether or not he cooperates. My guess is he'd then open the door for you.