Dumbass cops "knock"/pound on man's door without identifying themselves @ 1:30AM, man opens door wit - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39610296] What was that? Oh right "inference and not proof in any way". You assume he was so fucking confused that he would keep aiming a gun at police officers while they gun him down, just because it was 1 AM and he wasn't a police officer. Nice.[/QUOTE] Inference countered with inference, yes You have no proof they had their weapons drawn, so if you want to go down to that level (I was doing you a favor), you're wrong.

Fucking scum

Where I live, criminals will often bang on doors to see if people are home - if no answer, they break in. Someone knocking on a door with urgency at 1:30AM could have been anywhere between someone begging for help and an armed intruder; answering the door with a gun readied is a perfectly rational answer to that situation. [quote]Police now routinely ask and receive warrants that waive the constitutional requirement to “knock and announcement.” Not only is this requirement codified in the U.S. Code, but it is viewed as a factor in determining if a search or seizure is reasonable under the fourth amendment.[/quote] Unless they had a warrant that waived their need to announce themselves, they broke the law and are culpable for his death.

Reading this thread has made me lose all respect for scout. I'm glad all he does is sit and play EVE. If he were in a position of authority he'd abuse it.

[QUOTE=Bassplaya7;39610327] Unless they had a warrant that waived their need to announce themselves, they broke the law and are culpable for his death.[/QUOTE] [law citation needed] [editline]16th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Ereunity;39610334]Reading this thread has made me lose all respect for scout. I'm glad all he does is sit and play EVE. If he were in a position of authority he'd abuse it.[/QUOTE] Would you like to hear about the time I started up a corporation and scammed and abused newbies that I invited?

[QUOTE=scout1;39610319]Inference countered with inference, yes You have no proof they had their weapons drawn, so if you want to go down to that level (I was doing you a favor), you're wrong.[/QUOTE] I have proof that they were ready to kill a guy as soon as he opens the door because that's what they fucking did.

[QUOTE=scout1;39610336][law citation needed] [/QUOTE] Uhh the 4th amendment? [quote=wikipedia]Knock-and-announce, in United States law of criminal procedure, is an ancient common-law principle, incorporated into the Fourth Amendment, which often requires law enforcement officers to announce their presence and provide residents with an opportunity to open the door prior to a valid Fourth-Amendment search.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Bassplaya7;39610364]Uhh the 4th amendment?[/QUOTE] The fed, not state and announce, not identify There are also very valid reasons (in that very wikipedia article) when that can be wavied.

Why can anyone just be a fucking cop these days, jesus christ.

[QUOTE=scout1;39610381]The fed, not state and announce, not identify [/quote] I have no idea what you are trying to say. [QUOTE=scout1;39610381] There are also very valid reasons (in that very wikipedia article) when that can be wavied.[/QUOTE] Yes, as I said, if they had a warrant that waived their responsibility to do so, they aren't technically at fault.

So scout. How is doing something in less than a second not proof that you were ready to do the thing?

[QUOTE=Bassplaya7;39610404]I have no idea what you are trying to say. [/QUOTE] Okay let me make it clear: That applies to [B]the federal government and its subsidiaries, not local police unless their state has codified a similar law[/B] [QUOTE=Bassplaya7;39610404] Yes, as I said, if they had a warrant that waived their responsibility to do so, they aren't technically at fault.[/QUOTE] Read your own wikipedia article, damn. They are circumstances when the warrant isn't required. Danger to officers is one of them. [editline]16th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Silly Sil;39610444]So scout. How is doing something in less than a second not proof that you were ready to do the thing?[/QUOTE] How is it proof that the officers are guilty?

I don't post often, but holy fucking shit is this getting painful to not post. Scout, you are void of any logic whatsoever. Think for just a moment, please. You are relentlessly defending the cops on the grounds of self defense, without even considering the poor bloke on the other side of the door. Think for a god damn moment, here. Picture this fucking scenario. You wake up at 1:30 am to loud pounding on your front door. You would have to be insane to not think something is going on wrong (mind you the police have not identified themselves). You would think "Hey, some people are pounding on my door! Maybe they're theives trying to get in. I'll get my gun, just in case." You would fucking think that, would you not? Please tell me you would. PLEASE.

This seems to happen way too often, why would they even be banging on his door that early

[QUOTE=Boaraes;39610459]I don't post often, but holy fucking shit is this getting painful to not post. Scout, you are void of any logic whatsoever. Think for just a moment, please. You are relentlessly defending the cops on the grounds of self defense, without even considering the poor bloke on the other side of the door. Think for a god damn moment, here. Picture this fucking scenario. You wake up at 1:30 am to loud pounding on your front door. You would have to be insane to not think something is going on wrong (mind you the police have not identified themselves). You would think "Hey, some people are pounding on my door! Maybe they're theives trying to get in. I'll get my gun, just in case." You would fucking think that, would you not? Please tell me you would. PLEASE.[/QUOTE] We stated earlier in the thread what I'd do in this situation. Now if you aim a weapon at me. I don't care if you're on the other side of the door. I will defend myself.

[QUOTE=scout1;39610450]Okay let me make it clear: That applies to [B]the federal government and its subsidiaries, not local police unless their state has codified a similar law[/B] [/QUOTE] [quote=Florida state laws]If a peace officer fails to gain admittance after she or he has announced her or his authority and purpose in order to make an arrest either by a warrant or when authorized to make an arrest for a felony without a warrant, the officer may use all necessary and reasonable force to enter any building or property where the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be.[/quote] Source: [url]http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0900-0999/0901/Sections/0901.19.html[/url] Better?

[QUOTE=scout1;39610492]We stated earlier in the thread what I'd do in this situation. Now if you aim a weapon at me. I don't care if you're on the other side of the door. I will defend myself.[/QUOTE] If you're the reason the person aimed the weapon, it's still your damn fault. It's not rocket science or anything.

[QUOTE=Bassplaya7;39610508]Source: [url]http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0900-0999/0901/Sections/0901.19.html[/url] Better?[/QUOTE] Yes, better Interestingly the statute applies [url=http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2010/sc09-1684.pdf]when officers enter a building to arrest someone with a warrant[/url] It could be argued that since the officers never entered without permission they violated no law. In fact as far it's concerned, the officers knocked to question occupants about the motorcycle outside and if the suspect answered the front door, fantastic, reason to enter. As it is... they knocked, a man answered pointing a gun. Procedure took over from there. Isn't the law a wonderful thing? [editline]16th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Deep;39610540]If you're the reason the person aimed the weapon, it's still your damn fault. It's not rocket science or anything.[/QUOTE] No that's a very base argument and completely ignoring circumstances. If I say something someone doesn't like and that makes them want to shoot me, I'm justified in defending myself.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;39609973]I'm reminded of a thread a year or so ago where the police entered a house on a no-knock raid and shot a guy because he thought they were intruders.[/QUOTE] this. there are two types of warrants: knock, and no knock. knock =knock and announce no knock = barge right in,no id. moral of the story, don't answer the door with a gun in your hand

[QUOTE=scout1;39610586]Yes, better Interestingly the statute applies [url=http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2010/sc09-1684.pdf]when officers enter a building to arrest someone with a warrant[/url] It could be argued that since the officers never entered without permission they violated no law. In fact as far it's concerned, the officers knocked to question occupants about the motorcycle outside and if the suspect answered the front door, fantastic, reason to enter. As it is... they knocked, a man answered pointing a gun. Procedure took over from there. Isn't the law a wonderful thing?[/QUOTE] He gave them no permission. If a girl scout comes to your door and you open it does that mean that they can come in even though you didnt state it? He opened the door to see what was going on because he though he was in danger, which is also why he had a gun.

[QUOTE=scout1;39610586] No that's a very base argument and completely ignoring circumstances. If I say something someone doesn't like and that makes them want to shoot me, I'm justified in defending myself.[/QUOTE] That argument is fucking ridiculous. Pointing a gun at someone for saying something offensive and pointing a gun at someone for banging on your door at 1:30am are completely fucking different situations. How the hell can you compare the two?

[QUOTE=scout1;39610586]It could be argued that since the officers never entered without permission they violated no law. In fact as far it's concerned, the officers knocked to question occupants about the motorcycle outside and if the suspect answered the front door, fantastic, reason to enter. As it is... they knocked, a man answered pointing a gun. Procedure took over from there.[/QUOTE] Procedure can [b]not possibly[/b] be to just fire.

[QUOTE=scout1;39610586]Yes, better Interestingly the statute applies [url=http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2010/sc09-1684.pdf]when officers enter a building to arrest someone with a warrant[/url] It could be argued that since the officers never entered without permission they violated no law. In fact as far it's concerned, the officers knocked to question occupants about the motorcycle outside and if the suspect answered the front door, fantastic, reason to enter. As it is... they knocked, a man answered pointing a gun. Procedure took over from there. Isn't the law a wonderful thing? [editline]16th February 2013[/editline] No that's a very base argument and completely ignoring circumstances. If I say something someone doesn't like and that makes them want to shoot me, I'm justified in defending myself.[/QUOTE] That case is discussing whether or not breaking the knock and announce rule was grounds to suppress evidence. Irrelevant here.

[QUOTE=EnlightenDead;39610637]He gave them no permission. If a girl scout comes to your door and you open it does that mean that they can come in even though you didnt state it? He opened the door to see what was going on because he though he was in danger, which is also why he had a gun.[/QUOTE] why would you answer the door if your in danger.

You don't make sense at all, jesus christ. I could believe you were just an avid fan of the police and an addictive supporter of authority, but then you said that if someone walked up to your house with a shotgun, started pounding on the door, and you walked up with a gun they'd be in the right to shoot you in the face. That's ridiculous and I can't even understand how you came to that conclusion. It's blatantly false. By your logic, I could legally be a mass murderer if I simply walked up to every house and pounded on the door until someone with a gun answered, at which point I'd be totally within my right to shoot them and continue walking to the next house. That's not true. I think this is a situation where ad-hominem arguments are totally justified. He's not debating a point, he's just arguing for the sake of having a different opinion. That isn't debate. That's attention-whoring and trolling.

[QUOTE=areolop;39610665]why would you answer the door if your in danger.[/QUOTE] Maybe thats why he had a gun..?

[QUOTE=st_nick5;39610640]That argument is fucking ridiculous. Pointing a gun at someone for saying something offensive and pointing a gun at someone for banging on your door at 1:30am are completely fucking different situations. How the hell can you compare the two?[/QUOTE] Because neither warrants pointing a gun at someone [editline]16th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Lalelalala;39610652]Procedure can [b]not possibly[/b] be to just fire.[/QUOTE] Procedure is to defend yourself. [editline]16th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=.Isak.;39610669]You don't make sense at all, jesus christ. I could believe you were just an avid fan of the police and an addictive supporter of authority, but then you said that if someone walked up to your house with a shotgun, started pounding on the door, and you walked up with a gun they'd be in the right to shoot you in the face. That's ridiculous and I can't even understand how you came to that conclusion. It's blatantly false. By your logic, I could legally be a mass murderer if I simply walked up to every house and pounded on the door until someone with a gun answered, at which point I'd be totally within my right to shoot them and continue walking to the next house. That's not true. I think this is a situation where ad-hominem arguments are totally justified. He's not debating a point, he's just arguing for the sake of having a different opinion. That isn't debate. That's attention-whoring and trolling.[/QUOTE] When someone points a gun at you without threatening them, yes you have a right to defend yourself. I doubt many people are going to answer the door, or do so with a weapon pointed at you but sure go ahead [editline]16th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=EnlightenDead;39610637]He gave them no permission. If a girl scout comes to your door and you open it does that mean that they can come in even though you didnt state it? He opened the door to see what was going on because he though he was in danger, which is also why he had a gun.[/QUOTE] They took no permission. There was no entry until after the shooting. He answered the door. They were in danger. Shit happened.

[QUOTE=scout1;39610450]How is it proof that the officers are guilty?[/QUOTE] Sigh.. They have created a situation where a homeowner felt threatened, he responded by picking up a gun and checking who's banging on his door at 1 AM. And they have killed him for it. They are the ones responsible because if not them he wouldn't have pointed the gun at police officers. That's exactly like entrapment. [QUOTE=scout1;39610586]Yes, better Interestingly the statute applies [URL="http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2010/sc09-1684.pdf"]when officers enter a building to arrest someone with a warrant[/URL] It could be argued that since the officers never entered without permission they violated no law. In fact as far it's concerned, the officers knocked to question occupants about the motorcycle outside and if the suspect answered the front door, fantastic, reason to enter. As it is... they knocked, a man answered pointing a gun. Procedure took over from there. Isn't the law a wonderful thing?[/QUOTE] Yeah it's great that it's within the law to make people feel threated and kill them if they respond defensively. [QUOTE=scout1;39610586]No that's a very base argument and completely ignoring circumstances. If I say something someone doesn't like and that makes them want to shoot me, I'm justified in defending myself.[/QUOTE] So I'd walk up to you and punch you in the face, and you'd try to defend yourself, for instance with a gun, it would be okay if I killed you with my own? Same how it's okay for a police officer to dress up in casual clothes and offer free weed to people and bust them for possession the moment they take it...

[QUOTE=scout1;39610679]Procedure is to defend yourself.[/QUOTE] Bullshit. That would be the most inane and cryptic of procedures ever.

[QUOTE=scout1;39610679] When someone points a gun at you without threatening them, yes you have a right to defend yourself. I doubt many people are going to answer the door, or do so with a weapon pointed at you but sure go ahead [/QUOTE] Have you ever been robbed? If you dont answer your door, criminals will assume that no one is home, or that you are asleep and therefore break in. This guy obviously did not want that to happen, and brought a gun when opening the door to be sure. Then the cops shoot him without a warning.