Man tells cops they can't enter without a warrant, they kick in door, kill him.

[Ronin Truth]

I understand your point, but I'm sure you're aware that is only a short term solution.

At some point, probably soon, no matter how civil you may be, it won't matter.

And at some point, us, we, people, are going to have to grab their nuts and get this situation under control.

To each their own. Merely surviving each short term encounter, for now, just suits me fine.

I'm pretty comfy letting the hot blooded young Turks shed my share of the blood, at this point in my life.

Carry on!

I'll SWAG the dead guy now wishes that he'd handled his situation differently.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I'll SWAG the dead guy now wishes that he'd handled his situation differently.

Or, at the very least, did not go into the situation with a head filled with nonsense about "free countries" and "citizens have rights" and "cops are there to protect and serve".

I'm pretty comfy letting the hot blooded young Turks shed my share of the blood, at this point in my life.

Everybody in this back and forth we're having are of the same age, brother, myself included.

It's the youngsters that don't seem to give a shit, having been surrounded by the police state since birth, trying to explain what it is wrong is like trying to explain "wet" to a fish.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Or, at the very least, did not go into the situation with a head filled with nonsense about "free countries" and "citizens have rights" and "cops are there to protect and serve".



Everybody in this back and forth we're having are of the same age, brother, myself included.

It's the youngsters that don't seem to give a shit, having been surrounded by the police state since birth, trying to explain what it is wrong is like trying to explain "wet" to a fish.

We need more Darwin Award nominees every year. Just gotta catch 'em before they have the chance to breed.

 

[Anti Federalist]

We need more Darwin Award nominees every year. Just gotta catch 'em before they have the chance to breed.

How is this case a "Darwin" award?

Poking a rattlesnake or pouring gasoline on a fire, maybe.

But we're surrounded by a steady drumbeat of how cops are heroes, they protect and serve, they are the thin blue line against chaos and anarchy, they are Übermensch.

Why would anybody think they were, in fact, violent, berserking, psychopaths?

 

[Ronin Truth]

How is this case a "Darwin" award?

Poking a rattlesnake or pouring gasoline on a fire, maybe.

But we're surrounded by a steady drumbeat of how cops are heroes, they protect and serve, they are the thin blue line against chaos and anarchy, they are Übermensch.

Why would anybody think they were, in fact, violent, berserking, psychopaths?

Darwin Award = dying for really stupid preventable reasons. Pissing off the cops qualifies.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Darwin Award = dying for really stupid preventable reasons. Pissing off the cops qualifies.

That's my point.

It's not stupid or preventable if a reasonable person would perceive no real danger.

Most people don't perceive cops to be the dangerous lunatics they are.

That is the purpose of all these stories.

But I'm not going to dance on this man's grave.

 

[Ronin Truth]

That's my point.

It's not stupid or preventable if a reasonable person would perceive no real danger.

Most people don't perceive cops to be the dangerous lunatics they are.

That is the purpose of all these stories.

But I'm not going to dance on this man's grave.

In this day and age, it is.

 

[TheTexan]

Learning proper compliance techniques saves lives. This is why I send my kids to public school.

 

[RJB]

Learning proper compliance techniques saves lives. This is why I send my kids to public school.

That is a good way to put it.

Back in my day we learned etiquette and how to be polite. Nowadays they teach how to divert ones eyes and say "Yes officer, go ahead, just don't shoot."

 

[Leaning Libertarian]

http://www.constitution.org/bor/otis_against_writs.htm

Now, one of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one's house. A man's house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient.

I clearly posted although the 4th Amendment protects people from unlawful searches and seizures, the courts have routinely upheld exigencies that allow for warrantless police entry into homes. If you disagree with this premise, then go ahead. Here, I'll devise an experiment for you. Although absolutely nothing unlawful is happening at your home, have one of your neighbors call 911 and claim either a woman or child is being assaulted, that they can hear screams, pleas for help, and banging on the walls. When the police shows up at your home, deny them entry under your 4th Amendment rights since they don't have a warrant. Shut the door. If they try to force themselves in without a warrant, turn violent towards the police. See how this will work out for you. We have already seen how it worked out for this wanna-be Johnny Cochran. If you live through the ordeal, and once you are able to make bail, be sure and let us know how it turned out.

 

[Leaning Libertarian]

Did someone hijack your account, or are you just reverting to your roots?

I agree with the absolute majority of posts that reflect police in a "negative light," because they can and frequently do violate peoples rights. In this articles example though, I don't see it. If there was a 911 call reporting assault, the courts have routinely upheld police have a right to warrantless entry. I fully support people exercising their right to defend themselves against violations of their rights by police, even forcibly, when the police are acting "unlawfully." In this incident, I feel the police action of demanding warrantless entry was "lawful." Had there been a 911 call, reporting an alleged assault, and an unconscious woman or child was in the back bedroom bleeding out, the police would never have known if they just left. This is why the law is what it is. When police act unlawfully, I will not stand with them. When some stupid guy thinks he knows the "law," he better be right, because this incident shows the harsh reality of potential consequences. There is more to be said about the police decision to use deadly force when Livingston allegedly had taken the taser, than to be said of the police right to demand warrantless entry, given the circumstances. A taser is single shot, and needs to be "reloaded" with a fresh cartridge each time, to be deployed. As the article says the police deployed the taser, so what if he took it. Unless he had a fresh taser cartridge, I don't agree it posed any threat, let alone a deadly threat. The entry on the other hand seemed completely within their rights.

 

[sparebulb]

I clearly posted although the 4th Amendment protects people from unlawful searches and seizures, the courts have routinely upheld exigencies that allow for warrantless police entry into homes. If you disagree with this premise, then go ahead. Here, I'll devise an experiment for you. Although absolutely nothing unlawful is happening at your home, have one of your neighbors call 911 and claim either a woman or child is being assaulted, that they can hear screams, pleas for help, and banging on the walls. When the police shows up at your home, deny them entry under your 4th Amendment rights since they don't have a warrant. If they try to force themselves in without a warrant, turn violence towards the police. See how this will work out for you. We have already seen how it worked out for this wanna-be Johnny Cochran. If you live through the ordeal, and once you are able to make bail, be sure and let us know how it turned out.

 

[Danke]

I agree with the absolute majority of posts that reflect police in a "negative light," because they can and frequently do violate peoples rights. In this articles example though, I don't see it. If there was a 911 call reporting assault, the courts have routinely upheld police have a right to warrantless entry. I fully support people exercising their right to defend themselves against violations of their rights by police, even forcibly, when the police are acting "unlawfully." In this incident, I feel the police action of demanding warrantless entry was "lawful." Had there been a 911 call, reporting an alleged assault, and an unconscious woman or child was in the back bedroom bleeding out, the police would never have known if they just left. This is why the law is what it is. When police act unlawfully, I will not stand with them. When some stupid guy thinks he knows the "law," he better be right, because this incident shows the harsh reality of potential consequences. There is more to be said about the police decision to use deadly force when Livingston allegedly had taken the taser, than to be said of the police right to demand warrantless entry, given the circumstances.

If that is the case, police can always claim to have received a distress call. Or someone make a baseless call. Police should only have the power to search if they witness a crime in progress, like a criminal entering a home, etc.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I agree with the absolute majority of posts that reflect police in a "negative light," because they can and frequently do violate peoples rights. In this articles example though, I don't see it. If there was a 911 call reporting assault, the courts have routinely upheld police have a right to warrantless entry. I fully support people exercising their right to defend themselves against violations of their rights by police, even forcibly, when the police are acting "unlawfully." In this incident, I feel the police action of demanding warrantless entry was "lawful." Had there been a 911 call, reporting an alleged assault, and an unconscious woman or child was in the back bedroom bleeding out, the police would never have known if they just left. This is why the law is what it is. When police act unlawfully, I will not stand with them. When some stupid guy thinks he knows the "law," he better be right, because this incident shows the harsh reality of potential consequences. There is more to be said about the police decision to use deadly force when Livingston allegedly had taken the taser, than to be said of the police right to demand warrantless entry, given the circumstances. A taser is single shot, and needs to be "reloaded" with a fresh cartridge each time, to be deployed. As the article says the police deployed the taser, so what if he took it. Unless he had a fresh taser cartridge, I don't agree it posed any threat, let alone a deadly threat. The entry on the other hand seemed completely within their rights.

The (primary) objection to this incident is not that the police entered the residence without Livingston's consent - it is that they apparently attacked and killed Livingston without any just cause (and even without any provocation, other than that Livingston closed the door on them after refusing to invite them in).

The issue of Livingston grabbing the taser is irrelevant. From the reporting that has been presented thus far, it appears that it was the cops, and not Livingston, who instigated the violence (presumably for no purpose other than to put an uppity mundane in his place). In light of currently available facts - and even granting arguendo that it was permissible for the cops to have entered the residence against Livingston's wishes - blaming Livingston for what happened is grotesquely and viciously absurd.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I agree with the absolute majority of posts that reflect police in a "negative light," because they can and frequently do violate peoples rights. In this articles example though, I don't see it. If there was a 911 call reporting assault, the courts have routinely upheld police have a right to warrantless entry. I fully support people exercising their right to defend themselves against violations of their rights by police, even forcibly, when the police are acting "unlawfully." In this incident, I feel the police action of demanding warrantless entry was "lawful." Had there been a 911 call, reporting an alleged assault, and an unconscious woman or child was in the back bedroom bleeding out, the police would never have known if they just left. This is why the law is what it is. When police act unlawfully, I will not stand with them. When some stupid guy thinks he knows the "law," he better be right, because this incident shows the harsh reality of potential consequences. There is more to be said about the police decision to use deadly force when Livingston allegedly had taken the taser, than to be said of the police right to demand warrantless entry, given the circumstances. A taser is single shot, and needs to be "reloaded" with a fresh cartridge each time, to be deployed. As the article says the police deployed the taser, so what if he took it. Unless he had a fresh taser cartridge, I don't agree it posed any threat, let alone a deadly threat. The entry on the other hand seemed completely within their rights.

How do you feel about the SCOTUS decision regarding the 'totality of the circumstances' or their decision regarding 'inevitable discovery' or their decision regarding 'good faith exceptions'?

And their decision on the ACA, Gonzales v. Raich, and Wickard v. Filburn? And what of the Schenck case?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

In case some aren't aware, the infallible SCOTUS has ruled that a search conducted off of a defective warrant is no issue, nor is camping inside someone's home for nineteen hours to wait for a warrant a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

And so It was Written. And so It shall be done. Amen.

 

[Origanalist]

In case some aren't aware, the infallible SCOTUS has ruled that a search conducted off of a defective warrant is no issue, nor is camping inside someone's home for nineteen hours to wait for a warrant a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

And so It was Written. And so It shall be done. Amen.

The Nazgul have so decreed.

 

[osan]

In case some aren't aware, the infallible SCOTUS has ruled that a search conducted off of a defective warrant is no issue, nor is camping inside someone's home for nineteen hours to wait for a warrant a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

And so It was Written. And so It shall be done. Amen.

Imagine it - we will likely have to resort to a new feudal age where groups of people congeal in communities that defy Themme and Theire fiat. Imagine that we would have to travel in packs of 20 or 50 heavily armed people, ready and willing to ghost any cops who would dare accost us without cause and who would violate our rights individually. Imagine how that lifestyle would suck donkey-ass. But what if that were the only way to proceed, short of a civil war?

Perhaps I am just having another of my moments, but I am seeing no good path forward here in the struggle to retain freedom. There is so much mental/moral disease out there and I see no way that any of it will be cured as matters of voluntary will. Once a man goes over to the dark side, deciding he wants something on someone else's nickel, there is virtually no going back because the disease is complex as all hell and is maximally self-reinforcing. Just look at a heroin addict. It is only when the quality of his life is rendered so degraded as to be virtually unlivable, does he (maybe) finally decide to get help. If the perceived quality of life remained tolerably good, he would remain an addict to his last breath. Many, in fact, do precisely this. The disease of personal corruption as made so ubiquitously manifest today is just like that. As the parasite gets fatter and less healthy in mind and body, his motivation to recover diminishes in inverse proportion. As he descends into disease, the more diseased he wishes to become. This is a nightmare.

 

[Origanalist]

I agree with the absolute majority of posts that reflect police in a "negative light," because they can and frequently do violate peoples rights. In this articles example though, I don't see it. If there was a 911 call reporting assault, the courts have routinely upheld police have a right to warrantless entry. I fully support people exercising their right to defend themselves against violations of their rights by police, even forcibly, when the police are acting "unlawfully." In this incident, I feel the police action of demanding warrantless entry was "lawful." Had there been a 911 call, reporting an alleged assault, and an unconscious woman or child was in the back bedroom bleeding out, the police would never have known if they just left. This is why the law is what it is. When police act unlawfully, I will not stand with them. When some stupid guy thinks he knows the "law," he better be right, because this incident shows the harsh reality of potential consequences. There is more to be said about the police decision to use deadly force when Livingston allegedly had taken the taser, than to be said of the police right to demand warrantless entry, given the circumstances. A taser is single shot, and needs to be "reloaded" with a fresh cartridge each time, to be deployed. As the article says the police deployed the taser, so what if he took it. Unless he had a fresh taser cartridge, I don't agree it posed any threat, let alone a deadly threat. The entry on the other hand seemed completely within their rights.

You and I have had many good conversations, here we part ways. I do not consent to the ideology that the current rulings of the nine or lower courts correctly interpret the original intent of the constitution. If fact I deny it emphatically in most cases.

 

[phill4paul]

The lawyer representing the family of the 33-year-old Harnett County man fatally shot last month in an officer-involved shooting may have a cellphone video showing what happened.

Lillington lawyer Jesse Jones said Friday he's representing the family of John David Livingston II.

There has been talk of a person inside the mobile home where Livingston was shot and killed in the early hours of Nov. 15 recorded the incident. An alleged copy of an affidavit for the issuance of a search warrant for the property at 172 W. Everett St. in the Harnett community of Anderson Creek was left by officers inside the home, according to owner Clayton Carroll.

"They left it on the table," Carroll said.

The document states that one of the two Harnett County sheriff's deputies involved in the shooting believed a person inside the home recorded the incident on a cellphone.

Last month, a clerk in the Harnett County Clerk of Court office said that the document was not on file in the Harnett County Courthouse. A clerk at the Harnett County Sheriff's Office said the affidavit did not originate from the department.

Jones would only hint at the existence of such a recording.

"Let's just say if the second cop doesn't come truthful about what happened," he said, "he's probably going to get himself in a lot of trouble. I do have a cellphone used that night."

Carroll, who has come forward as one of three alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting, said Jones had advised him not to discuss the possibility of a video.

Carmen Saylor, the sister of the mother of Livingston's three children, said, "Possibly. That I'm not sure of. We're not 100 percent sure of that."

The Harnett County Sheriff's Office has declined to answer questions about the case. As of late Friday afternoon, media requests for copies of the 911 call and the audio on the radio transmissions between deputies and dispatchers have not been filled.

Nicholas Kehagias, who has been with the department since July 2013, has been identified by the Sheriff's Office as one of the deputies involved in the shooting. It has declined to name the other deputy.

The Sheriff's Office has referred any questions on the case to the State Bureau of Investigation, which is conducting a probe.

SBI spokesman Shannon O'Toole will not discuss the investigation. He could not be reached Friday.

Meanwhile, a protest is scheduled next week in Lillington in response to the shooting.

Saylor said the protest is scheduled Thursday at 8:30 a.m. in front of the county courthouse.

She said organizers are hoping to draw "a couple of hundred" community members to the planned protest. Because it was Livingston's favorite color, protesters are being asked to wear red.

"The basic goal is justice for John," said Saylor, 35, of Spring Lake. "The three witnesses there said John was cooperating with police. So, for him to be shot and killed, was unnecessary. They say he was resisting, but three witnesses say he was on his stomach with one hand behind his back."

Jones said he has taken on the case because he's had a problem with the Sheriff's Office in the past. "I'm very aggressive, and I don't like cops," he said. "I have been in handcuffs, hit and Tased when I wasn't doing anything."

"It's amazing. If this had been a minority," he said, "this would be all over every paper. Because he was not a minority, nobody really said anything about it. My take is, it's not just a black thing with all these cop brutality cases. It's everybody. I've seen video after video and, it's like, what are they thinking?"

Saylor said Jones had met with family, Carroll and the two other men who are said to have witnessed the shooting on the front porch of Carroll's home.

A Harnett County Sheriff's Office news release said two deputies were searching for a suspect in an assault investigation when they arrived at the residence. Livingston had been living there for about seven to eight months.

Carroll has called the shooting of his roommate "cold-blooded murder." He says Livingston was roughed up, pulled onto the front deck of the trailer by his beard and hair, pepper-sprayed and hit with a Taser before being shot multiple times.

Authorities have only said the shooting followed a confrontation with a suspect.

Earlier this week, the SBI's O'Toole said the agency was waiting on lab reports and the autopsy report. He said the lab reports would most likely include any ballistics evidence or on-scene forensics in the fatal shooting.

Nearly three weeks after the shooting, Saylor said, the family of the victim remains devastated by their loss.

"I'm almost at the stage when it first happened," she said, "where I walk into his mother's house or the grocery store expecting that John will be there."

http://www.fayobserver.com/news/cri...cle_b1570249-5083-50d9-9446-9469e5cca0d8.html