# Judge rules against Qualified Immunity for police officer who violated man's 4th Amendment rights.



## pknopp

I have no idea how this officer thought he had to right to go into a persons house in the first place let alone with guns drawn. 

 Maybe they will start to learn what they can and can not do when we hold more of them personally responsible for violating people's rights.

Judge rules for Black man arrested in his new Monona home


----------



## White 6

pknopp said:


> I have no idea how this officer thought he had to right to go into a persons house in the first place let alone with guns drawn.
> 
> Maybe they will start to learn what they can and can not do when we hold more of them personally responsible for violating people's rights.
> 
> Judge rules for Black man arrested in his new Monona home


Looks like lawsuit is BS to me.  Furdge should not have sued.  He was not abused while the put cuffs on for the protection of everybody involved and even checked with Furdge if the cuff fit was ok and it was.  Officer were not abusive in speech.  It was quickly resolved as probably proper and OK.  Cuffs were removed while awaiting confirmation.  By the end, Furdge was conversational and smiling while talking.  Officer apologized for the intrusion.  Yep.  Lawsuit was BS and the judge full of BS.


----------



## pknopp

White 6 said:


> Looks like lawsuit is BS to me.  Furdge should not have sued.  He was not abused while the put cuffs on for the protection of everybody involved and even checked with Furdge if the cuff fit was ok and it was.  Officer were not abusive in speech.  It was quickly resolved as probably proper and OK.  Cuffs were removed while awaiting confirmation.  By the end, Furdge was conversational and smiling while talking.  Officer apologized for the intrusion.  Yep.  Lawsuit was BS and the judge full of BS.



 Violating one's civil rights doesn't become acceptable just because they didn't beat him.


----------



## White 6

pknopp said:


> Violating one's civil rights doesn't become acceptable just because they didn't beat him.


Furdge should not get jacksh#t in the lawsuit.  If here, he would not.  Out on the left coast, he might, but that does not mean he was harmed in any way.  Without loss, he should not benefit, is my opinion.  He would not get anything here.  He should go smiling on his way, smiling in his sweatpants as he was when the police apologized for the inconvenience and left.  Makes me wonder who told him he might make a bundle off the encounter, probably a lawyer or activist.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

pknopp said:


> Violating one's civil rights doesn't become acceptable just because they didn't beat him.



The judge is in the wrong.  Police do have that right, it's called reasonable suspicion.  This guy didn't live there previously and criminals often target homes of the deceased.  When my neighbor passed away from lung cancer somebody broke into her home and stole all the copper pipes.  

In any case they had a testimony from a neighbor that a stranger was in the house that shouldn't be there.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

White 6 said:


> Furdge should not get jacksh#t in the lawsuit.  If here, he would not.  Out on the left coast, he might, but that does not mean he was harmed in any way.  Without loss, he should not benefit, is my opinion.  He would not get anything here.  He should go smiling on his way, smiling in his sweatpants as he was when the police apologized for the inconvenience and left.  Makes me wonder who told him he might make a bundle off the encounter, probably a lawyer or activist.



He won't get a dime.  In order to make a claim you have to prove you had some sort of loss.


----------



## cnm

White 6 said:


> Looks like lawsuit is BS to me. Furdge should not have sued. He was not abused while the put cuffs on for the protection of everybody involved and even checked with Furdge if the cuff fit was ok and it was.


Wow. So if police enter your home and cuff you, (for the protection of everybody) you're all good with that?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

cnm said:


> Wow. So if police enter your home and cuff you, you're all good with that?



I am.  In fact I'd thank them. 

So let's say this guy didn't live there and he was robbing the place as the neighbor suspected.  The police call him out and he doesn't respond.  They just shrug their shoulders and leave, would you be happy about that if you were the home owner and some clown ripped you off for 10 grand and your guns?


----------



## bodecea

pknopp said:


> Violating one's civil rights doesn't become acceptable just because they didn't beat him.


Thank you for that obvious fact.  Sad how some are willing to accept a violation of rights..........in others.


----------



## bodecea

cnm said:


> Wow. So if police enter your home and cuff you, you're all good with that?


You have to realize....this is the same mindset that would hand out milk and cookies to a violent mob breaking into their home or place of work......................as per their mindless support of Darwin Award Winner Babbitt.


----------



## cnm

White 6 said:


> He was not abused while the put cuffs on for the protection of everybody involved and even checked with Furdge if the cuff fit was ok and it was.


I love it. Should not the police have then also have been cuffed for the 'protection of everybody' as long as the cuff fit was okay?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

bodecea said:


> Thank you for that obvious fact.  Sad how some are willing to accept a violation of rights..........in others.



What violation of their rights?  Police have the authority to search a car or residence if there is reasonable suspicion.  That's been ruled on generations ago.  Police had every reason to believe somebody may be robbing an unoccupied home.  That's reasonable to me.


----------



## pknopp

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I am.  In fact I'd thank them.
> 
> So let's say this guy didn't live there and he was robbing the place as the neighbor suspected.  The police call him out and he doesn't respond.  They just shrug their shoulders and leave, would you be happy about that if you were the home owner and some clown ripped you off for 10 grand and your guns?



 Knock more than once. Knock on the back door. Do your job and watch the house for televisions leaving out the front door.

 Ask the neighbors. The police do not have the right to violate anyone's civil rights because of a nosy neighbor.


----------



## pknopp

cnm said:


> I love it. Should not the police have then also have been cuffed for the 'protection of everybody' as long as the cuff fit was okay?



 I believe the violations of our Constitutional rights should be an arrest able offense.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

pknopp said:


> Knock more than once. Knock on the back door. Do your job and watch the house for televisions leaving out the front door.
> 
> Ask the neighbors. The police do not have the right to violate anyone's civil rights because of a nosy neighbor.



Your OP didn't say they knocked, they said police yelled for him to come out which he didn't.


----------



## pknopp

bodecea said:


> You have to realize....this is the same mindset that would hand out milk and cookies to a violent mob breaking into their home or place of work......................as per their mindless support of Darwin Award Winner Babbitt.



 I said the police had no justifications for shooting her. But we will note your hypocrisy.


----------



## pknopp

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Your OP didn't say they knocked, they said police yelled for him to come out which he didn't.



 They should have knocked. Knocked 7-8 times if necessary. With NO evidence of any crime being committed they had NO other choice as this ruling points out.


----------



## cnm

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So let's say this guy didn't live there and he was robbing the place as the neighbor suspected.


Sitting on the balcony?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

pknopp said:


> They should have knocked. Knocked 7-8 times if necessary. With NO evidence of any crime being committed they had NO other choice as this ruling points out.



Right, and while they are knocking a real burglar would be sneaking out the other door.  Maybe after they knocked for 20 minutes, he'd be home by then with all the jewelry, cash and guns he stole.


----------



## pknopp

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Right, and while they are knocking a real burglar would be sneaking out the other door.  Maybe after they knocked for 20 minutes, he'd be home by then with all the jewelry, cash and guns he stole.



 There was two of them. They had ZERO evidence any crime was being committed. ZERO.


----------



## struth

pknopp said:


> I have no idea how this officer thought he had to right to go into a persons house in the first place let alone with guns drawn.
> 
> Maybe they will start to learn what they can and can not do when we hold more of them personally responsible for violating people's rights.
> 
> Judge rules for Black man arrested in his new Monona home


ah so we don’t need to abolish qualified immunity…the law works as is


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

cnm said:


> Sitting on the balcony?



What's the difference?  Criminals are bold these days.  Because he was sitting on the balcony doesn't mean he wasn't in the process of robbing the place.  There have been stories of burglars making themselves a snack on the stove of the victims.


----------



## cnm

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Your OP didn't say they knocked, they said police yelled for him to come out which he didn't.


_








						Judge rules for Black man arrested in his new Monona home
					

A federal judge has ruled that a Monona police officer clearly violated a man's Fourth Amendment rights when he entered a home without a warrant.




					www.yahoo.com
				



_​_By the time an officer arrived, Furdge had moved to a bedroom. From the front door, the first officer could hear Furdge inside and said, "You want to come out here?" But Furdge, who appeared to be singing or talking on a phone, did not respond._​_After a second officer showed up, they entered the home without knocking or announcing themselves, or checking with the owner._​_With guns drawn, they yelled, "Police — come out with your hands up." Furdge did. He was handcuffed and held briefly until more officers came, and learned from other neighbors that Furdge had permission to stay at the home. They apologized to Furdge._​


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

pknopp said:


> There was two of them. They had ZERO evidence any crime was being committed. ZERO.



I wouldn't call a neighbor that lives there calling in a potential house robbery zero evidence.  Apparently the neighbor did know who lived there and these guys weren't it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

cnm said:


> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judge rules for Black man arrested in his new Monona home
> 
> 
> A federal judge has ruled that a Monona police officer clearly violated a man's Fourth Amendment rights when he entered a home without a warrant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _​_By the time an officer arrived, Furdge had moved to a bedroom. From the front door, the first officer could hear Furdge inside and said, "You want to come out here?" But Furdge, who appeared to be singing or talking on a phone, did not respond._​​_After a second officer showed up, they entered the home without knocking or announcing themselves, or checking with the owner._​​_With guns drawn, they yelled, "Police — come out with your hands up." Furdge did. He was handcuffed and held briefly until more officers came, and learned from other neighbors that Furdge had permission to stay at the home. They apologized to Furdge._​



I know what it said.  I read it twice.  So what?


----------



## pknopp

struth said:


> ah so we don’t need to abolish qualified immunity…the law works as is



 Not always.


----------



## pknopp

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I wouldn't call a neighbor that lives there calling in a potential house robbery zero evidence.  Apparently the neighbor did know who lived there and these guys weren't it.



 She didn't know who lived there. He was it.


----------



## White 6

cnm said:


> Wow. So if police enter your home and cuff you, (for the protection of everybody) you're all good with that?


If I were in that situation, and it handled that way, no violence, no disrespect, no abuse on the cuffing and I was smiling and chatting at the end, I would not be drawn into filing a lawsuit, just to get some free money from the city.
It would not happen that way though.  If I was asleep in the back, not hearing somebody (cops or anybody else outside, Lexi, my 90 lb. very territorial and protective of family, German Shepherd would have never let them in the door (which would most likely be locked), until I was up, and gave her a command to get her to stand down and go to another room.


----------



## White 6

cnm said:


> I love it. Should not the police have then also have been cuffed for the 'protection of everybody' as long as the cuff fit was okay?


What fantasy world on the West Coast do you live in?


----------



## pknopp

White 6 said:


> If I were in that situation, and it handled that way, no violence, no disrespect, no abuse on the cuffing and I was smiling and chatting at the end, I would not be drawn into filing a lawsuit, just to get some free money from the city.
> It would not happen that way though.  If I was asleep in the back, not hearing somebody (cops or anybody else outside, Lexi, my 90 lb. very territorial and protective of family, German Shepherd would have never let them in the door (which would most likely be locked), until I was up, and gave her a command to get her to stand down and go to another room.



 You've not seen what cops do to dogs. They shoot them.


----------



## White 6

bodecea said:


> Thank you for that obvious fact.  Sad how some are willing to accept a violation of rights..........in others.


Not necessarily, but it goes a long way, under the heading of "no harm", "no foul" among people that are not crusaders.


----------



## struth

pknopp said:


> Not always.


haha well yeah that’s always true…our system isn’t perfect, humans are 100 percent always right.  but it’s the best system there is


----------



## pknopp

struth said:


> haha well yeah that’s always true…our system isn’t perfect, humans are 100 percent always right.  but it’s the best system there is



 We are making inroads in making it even better.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

pknopp said:


> She didn't know who lived there. He was it.



She didn't know who lived there?  Then why did she call the police?  Do you call police on your neighbors you don't know?


----------



## okfine

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Right, and while they are knocking a real burglar would be sneaking out the other door.  Maybe after they knocked for 20 minutes, he'd be home by then with all the jewelry, cash and guns he stole.


C'mon Ray. Quit supposing.


----------



## okfine

White 6 said:


> If I were in that situation, and it handled that way, no violence, no disrespect, no abuse on the cuffing and I was smiling and chatting at the end, I would not be drawn into filing a lawsuit, just to get some free money from the city.
> It would not happen that way though.  If I was asleep in the back, not hearing somebody (cops or anybody else outside, Lexi, my 90 lb. very territorial and protective of family, German Shepherd would have never let them in the door (which would most likely be locked), until I was up, and gave her a command to get her to stand down and go to another room.


Was there a dog involved in the OP?


----------



## pknopp

Ray From Cleveland said:


> She didn't know who lived there?  Then why did she call the police?  Do you call police on your neighbors you don't know?



 She likely saw a black guy and freaked. You know the feeling.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

okfine said:


> C'mon Ray. Quit supposing.



You have to suppose with a story like this.  

If I came home and found my house had been robbed, called the police, and they told me there were here while I was being robbed, I think I'd be pretty pissed about it. 

You were here and you didn't arrest them, why? 
Because we called whoever was in the house out and he didn't respond, so we just left!
You left after my neighbor called you out telling you there was somebody in my house that wasn't me? 
Yeah, you know, we didn't want to violate his rights just in case they were allowed to be there!  
So you didn't pursue the matter further until you knew for sure? 
You betcha!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

pknopp said:


> She likely saw a black guy and freaked. You know the feeling.



I do, huh?  Yeah, I do that all the time here.  Anytime I see a black person I don't know on a property I have no idea who lives there, I just call the cops.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

We'll see more of this as the anti-cop movement drives down the quality of the average recruit.


----------



## White 6

pknopp said:


> You've not seen what cops do to dogs. They shoot them.


That would be different, but probably not settled in court, more likely, then and there.  It's been fun, but I'm just a pecker wood living in a house with too many guns.


----------



## okfine

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You have to suppose with a story like this.
> 
> If I came home and found my house had been robbed, called the police, and they told me there were here while I was being robbed, I think I'd be pretty pissed about it.
> 
> You were here and you didn't arrest them, why?
> Because we called whoever was in the house out and he didn't respond, so we just left!
> You left after my neighbor called you out telling you there was somebody in my house that wasn't me?
> Yeah, you know, we didn't want to violate his rights just in case they were allowed to be there!
> So you didn't pursue the matter further until you knew for sure?
> You betcha!


"If"
No Ray. You don't.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> We'll see more of this as the anti-cop movement drives down the quality of the average recruit.



It's already happening. 

Last summer I had a one on one with our police chief.  It was a city zoom meeting but I was the only one that showed up since it was rescheduled last minute. 

When I asked the chief if there was a problem with money getting more officers, he told me they have money for five more, but they can't get anybody to apply.  He said when he applied to be an officer in our city back in 1990, he was up against 950 other applicants for one opening.  Today he said, when we advertise for a new officer, we're lucky to get 20 applicants.  out of them, a good percentage won't be able to pass the exam, out of the ones that do, some of them fail the academy, and even if they pass the academy, many times they can't catch on to the job and we let them go.  

It's not just our problem he added, this is a nationwide problem.


----------



## Golfing Gator

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I am. In fact I'd thank them.



how sad for you


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

okfine said:


> "If"
> No Ray. You don't.



I don't what????


----------



## White 6

pknopp said:


> She didn't know who lived there. He was it.


There ya go.  She is who Furdge should have sued


----------



## pknopp

White 6 said:


> There ya go.  She is who Furdge should have sued



 She isn't the one who violated his rights.


----------



## White 6

pknopp said:


> She isn't the one who violated his rights.


Karen is the one that gave the police reasonable suspicion a crime might be taking place.  They had to follow up.  It is their job.


----------



## bodecea

pknopp said:


> I said the police had no justifications for shooting her. But we will note your hypocrisy.


I'm sure you are in the "milk n' cookies" camp if she was the lead element in a violent mob breaking down your home or business's front door.


----------



## pknopp

White 6 said:


> Karen is the one that gave the police reasonable suspicion a crime might be taking place.  They had to follow up.  It is their job.



 No she didn't. Seems the court disagree's.


----------



## pknopp

bodecea said:


> I'm sure you are in the "milk n' cookies" camp if she was the lead element in a violent mob breaking down your home or business's front door.



 If she got through, the cop is standing right there. Arrest her.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

pknopp said:


> She isn't the one who violated his rights.



Neither did the police.


----------



## White 6

pknopp said:


> No she didn't. Seems the court disagree's.


I would appeal.


----------



## Mac-7

Golfing Gator said:


> how sad for you


Instead of a snarky reply why dont you answer the question?

if it was your house being robbed and a neighbor called the cops I bet you would be really mad if they did nothing to stop it


----------



## pknopp

Mac-7 said:


> Instead of a snarky reply why dont you answer the question?
> 
> if it was your house being robbed and a neighbor called the cops I bet you would be really mad if they did nothing to stop it



 Nobodies house was being robbed.


----------



## Mac-7

pknopp said:


> Nobodies house was being robbed.


The cops had no way of knowing that when they arrived at the scene


----------



## cnm

White 6 said:


> What fantasy world on the West Coast do you live in?


That fantasy world where the same laws apply to everyone. Definitely not on the West Coast.


----------



## cnm

White 6 said:


> If I were in that situation, and it handled that way, no violence, no disrespect, no abuse on the cuffing and I was smiling and chatting at the end, I would not be drawn into filing a lawsuit, just to get some free money from the city.


Well if police cuffed me in my own residence I'd be on the phone to a lawyer before they were out the door.


----------



## cnm

White 6 said:


> Karen is the one that gave the police reasonable suspicion a crime might be taking place.


Someone sitting on the patio is reasonable suspicion? 

Oh. 

I forgot.

Sitting on a patio while Black.

Fair enough.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

cnm said:


> Well if police cuffed me in my own residence I'd be on the phone to a lawyer before they were out the door.



How would you punch in the numbers?


----------



## pknopp

Mac-7 said:


> The cops had no way of knowing that when they arrived at the scene



 And they can't assume anything and just break into a persons house........as we see here.


----------



## Mac-7

pknopp said:


> And they can't assume anything and just break into a persons house........as we see here.


What they assumed was the real possibility that they were confronting a burgler


----------



## pknopp

Mac-7 said:


> What they assumed was the real possibility that they were confronting a burgler



 I can't help that they always see danger around every corner. That's their problem and why the founders made sure our rights were protected.


----------



## Mac-7

pknopp said:


> I can't help that they always see danger around every corner


Cops who die from danger  around any corner

when libs totally abandon law and order you will be sorry


----------



## pknopp

Mac-7 said:


> Cops who die from danger  around any corner
> 
> when libs totally abandon law and order you will be sorry



 The only law broken here was by the cops.


----------



## Mac-7

pknopp said:


> The only law broken here was by the cops.


Not in my opinion 

no laws were broken by anyone including the cops


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

pknopp said:


> The only law broken here was by the cops.



Nobody broke anything.  Police officers are allowed to search houses or cars if they have reasonable suspicion.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

pknopp said:


> And they can't assume anything and just break into a persons house........as we see here.



Reasonable Suspicion​
Overview​_*Reasonable suspicion is a standard used in criminal procedure. Reasonable suspicion is used in determining the legality of a police officer's decision to perform a search.
When an officer stops someone to search the person, courts require that the officer has either a search warrant, probable cause to search, or a reasonable suspicion to search. In descending order of what gives an officer the broadest authority to perform a search, courts have found that the order is search warrant, probable cause, and then reasonable suspicion. *_









						Reasonable Suspicion
					






					www.law.cornell.edu
				




In this situation the officer had probable cause and reasonable suspicion to enter the home and look around for a potential suspect.


----------



## pknopp

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Reasonable Suspicion​
> Overview​_*Reasonable suspicion is a standard used in criminal procedure. Reasonable suspicion is used in determining the legality of a police officer's decision to perform a search.
> When an officer stops someone to search the person, courts require that the officer has either a search warrant, probable cause to search, or a reasonable suspicion to search. In descending order of what gives an officer the broadest authority to perform a search, courts have found that the order is search warrant, probable cause, and then reasonable suspicion. *_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable Suspicion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu



 The judge ruled otherwise.


----------



## Mac-7

pknopp said:


> The judge ruled otherwise.


An obama flunkie

aka the fruits of a politicized judiciary


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

pknopp said:


> The judge ruled otherwise.



The judge was wrong and if appealed, will reverse his decision.


----------



## Mac-7

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Nobody broke anything.  Police officers are allowed to search houses or cars if they have reasonable suspicion.


And had reasonable suspicion due to a 911 call from a neighbor


----------



## Mac-7

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The judge was wrong and if appealed, will reverse his decision.


If the judge is overturned he should be removed from the bench


----------



## pknopp

Mac-7 said:


> And had reasonable suspicion due to a 911 call from a neighbor



 LOL, the neighbor said they saw someone chilling on the back deck.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Mac-7 said:


> If the judge is overturned he should be removed from the bench



He should be removed either way.  Just another anti-cop leftist making things worse in our country.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

pknopp said:


> LOL, the neighbor said they saw someone chilling on the back deck.



And????


----------



## Mac-7

Ray From Cleveland said:


> He should be removed either way.  Just another anti-cop leftist making things worse in our country.


Simply not liking a judge because he’s a lib is not a good eough reason

but if we prove he is incompetent then removing him is the obvious thing to do


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Mac-7 said:


> Simply not liking a judge because he’s a lib is not a good eough reason
> 
> but if we prove he is incompetent then removing him is the obvious thing to do



It's difficult either way.  I would think one would have to prove harmful intent.  You would have to prove that the judge knew reasonable suspicion was warranted in a case like this but as a judge, it's his opinion and you can't remove a judge for coming to his own conclusion.  That's why we have appeals courts.  I didn't look up this clown but if he's an elected official, that would explain it because somebody could make it a race matter even though (according to the OP) the dispatcher never mentioned the suspects race when she relayed the information.


----------



## pknopp

Ray From Cleveland said:


> And????



 Nothing illegal in that.


----------



## Mac-7

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It's difficult either way.  I would think one would have to prove harmful intent.  You would have to prove that the judge knew reasonable suspicion was warranted in a case like this but as a judge, it's his opinion and you can't remove a judge for coming to his own conclusion.  That's why we have appeals courts.  I didn't look up this clown but if he's an elected official, that would explain it because somebody could make it a race matter even though (according to the OP) the dispatcher never mentioned the suspects race when she relayed the information.


Under the law there is only one right answer

thats what the demigods in black robes keep telling us

if a lower court judge is too stupid to know what the correct answer is without being told then he should not be a judge


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

pknopp said:


> Nothing illegal in that.



No there isn't, but the neighbor didn't call police because somebody was on the back deck, they called police because there was a stranger on the property that was not the owner.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Mac-7 said:


> Under the law there is only one right answer
> 
> thats what the demigods in black robes keep telling us
> 
> if a lower court judge is too stupid to know what the correct answer is without being told then he should not be a judge



Not really because the judge could say he didn't believe there was just cause for them to enter the home.  He's not right or wrong, he just decided there wasn't enough evidence for the police to go into the house.


----------



## pknopp

Ray From Cleveland said:


> No there isn't, but the neighbor didn't call police because somebody was on the back deck, they called police because there was a stranger on the property that was not the owner.



 They called because a black guy was on the back porch. I understand that you always see that as suspicious but that's your problem. A problem that does sadly negatively affects others also.


----------



## Mac-7

Ray From Cleveland said:


> He's not right or wrong,


I disagree

the law is not a matter of one persons opinion

when reading the law there is only one right answer


----------



## Superbadbrutha

pknopp said:


> Violating one's civil rights doesn't become acceptable just because they didn't beat him.


Exactly it's like saying, "Well they didn't hit him with a night stick or put a bullet in him".


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Mac-7 said:


> I disagree
> 
> the law is not a matter of one persons opinion
> 
> when reading the law there is only one right answer



Whether law was broken or not is the judges opinion.  He or she is the one that makes those decisions.  In this case it was a question if the officers were in the right by using reasonable suspicion in which to enter the home.  Given the circumstances I would say they were right, but that's my opinion and it's only based on what I read.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

pknopp said:


> They called because a black guy was on the back porch. I understand that you always see that as suspicious but that's your problem. A problem that does sadly negatively affects others also.



Yes that's why she called. So what?  It doesn't mention what their coaches race was since it was his mother that owned the house and apparently just passed away.  If she was white and two black guys are in and out of the house, she had every reason to call.  Even if their coach was black and the mother also, it's still two younger guys in a house of an old lady.


----------



## Mac-7

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Whether law was broken or not is the judges opinion. He or she is the one that makes those decisions.


That's not true

the judge cannot make law on his own

or at least they arent supposed to


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Mac-7 said:


> That's not true
> 
> the judge cannot make law on his own
> 
> or at least they arent supposed to



Agreed, but the judge is who determines if a law was actually broken or not.  The judge feels like it was in this case.  Again, I disagree with him, but he didn't do anything illegal coming to that inclusion.  He's just wrong with it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

pknopp said:


> I have no idea how this officer thought he had to right to go into a persons house in the first place let alone with guns drawn.
> 
> Maybe they will start to learn what they can and can not do when we hold more of them personally responsible for violating people's rights.
> 
> Judge rules for Black man arrested in his new Monona home


However trite it’s nonetheless true: those who would surrender their liberty for security deserve neither.

This case illustrates that – there are those who have no problem with law enforcement violating citizens’ rights ‘justified’ as an effort to ‘combat crime.’


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

White 6 said:


> Furdge should not get jacksh#t in the lawsuit.  If here, he would not.  Out on the left coast, he might, but that does not mean he was harmed in any way.  Without loss, he should not benefit, is my opinion.  He would not get anything here.  He should go smiling on his way, smiling in his sweatpants as he was when the police apologized for the inconvenience and left.  Makes me wonder who told him he might make a bundle off the encounter, probably a lawyer or activist.


The harm he suffered was the unlawful violations of his 4th Amendment rights.

This mindset, that he suffered no harm or worse yet, even if he did "so what" is why the police have been allowed to get away with these and even more egregious violations all this time.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

White 6 said:


> Furdge should not get jacksh#t in the lawsuit.


Wrong.

The lawsuit was perfectly valid the very second the officer lawlessly entered the home absent a warrant and in violation of the Fourth Amendment.


----------



## Mac-7

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Agreed, but the judge is who determines if a law was actually broken or not.  The judge feels like it was in this case.  Again, I disagree with him, but he didn't do anything illegal coming to that inclusion.  He's just wrong with it.


I did not say the judge broke the law

i said he is incompetent and misunderstands the law

which will be proven without dispute if a higher court overturns his decision


----------



## j-mac

pknopp said:


> I have no idea how this officer thought he had to right to go into a persons house in the first place let alone with guns drawn.
> 
> Maybe they will start to learn what they can and can not do when we hold more of them personally responsible for violating people's rights.
> 
> Judge rules for Black man arrested in his new Monona home


1. I don't know why the occupants would file suit. Seems like a misunderstanding, and a cordial encounter...

2. What part of this young mans rights were violated? He was detained for less than 2 minutes....


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Mac-7 said:


> What they assumed was the real possibility that they were confronting a burgler


And this is an example of someone willing to surrender our rights and protected liberties for ‘security.’

If law enforcement ‘assumes’ criminal conduct, they need to take their evidence to a judge and secure a warrant consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

Indeed, in this case there was neither probable cause nor exigent circumstances – and being black is neither probable cause nor an exigent circumstance.


----------



## j-mac

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> The lawsuit was perfectly valid the very second the officer lawlessly entered the home absent a warrant and in violation of the Fourth Amendment.


Nah, the lawsuit is ridiculous...It looked to me that this was handled by the book, and cordial...This is just looking to cash in...


----------



## Mac-7

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> If law enforcement ‘assumes’ criminal conduct,


What the cops assumed was the _POSSIBILITY_ of criminal conduct based on a 911 call


----------



## White 6

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> The harm he suffered was the unlawful violations of his 4th Amendment rights.
> 
> This mindset, that he suffered no harm or worse yet, even if he did "so what" is why the police have been allowed to get away with these and even more egregious violations all this time.


What harm was that, again?  I must have missed it.


----------



## pknopp

j-mac said:


> 1. I don't know why the occupants would file suit. Seems like a misunderstanding, and a cordial encounter...
> 
> 2. What part of this young mans rights were violated? He was detained for less than 2 minutes....



 A violation  of our rights aren't based upon how long they are violated......but you know that.


----------



## White 6

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> The lawsuit was perfectly valid the very second the officer lawlessly entered the home absent a warrant and in violation of the Fourth Amendment.


Let me get this straight.  You thanked me for post #4 and now you quote post #4 to object to what I said in the post you thanked me for?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And this is an example of someone willing to surrender our rights and protected liberties for ‘security.’
> 
> If law enforcement ‘assumes’ criminal conduct, they need to take their evidence to a judge and secure a warrant consistent with the Fourth Amendment.
> 
> Indeed, in this case there was neither probable cause nor exigent circumstances – and being black is neither probable cause nor an exigent circumstance.



It had nothing to do with race. Read the OP.  It clearly states that the dispatcher didn't relay the race of the people in question so they had no idea who they were going to run into. 

There is no violation of rights given the court has already recognized reasonable suspicion as a reason for police to serarch.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> The lawsuit was perfectly valid the very second the officer lawlessly entered the home absent a warrant and in violation of the Fourth Amendment.



Police don't always need a warrant to conduct a search.  I already posted evidence of that with a link.


----------



## otto105

White 6 said:


> Looks like lawsuit is BS to me.  Furdge should not have sued.  He was not abused while the put cuffs on for the protection of everybody involved and even checked with Furdge if the cuff fit was ok and it was.  Officer were not abusive in speech.  It was quickly resolved as probably proper and OK.  Cuffs were removed while awaiting confirmation.  By the end, Furdge was conversational and smiling while talking.  Officer apologized for the intrusion.  Yep.  Lawsuit was BS and the judge full of BS.


We have laws against what the police did. 

Do we not?


----------



## otto105

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It had nothing to do with race. Read the OP.  It clearly states that the dispatcher didn't relay the race of the people in question so they had no idea who they were going to run into.
> 
> There is no violation of rights given the court has already recognized reasonable suspicion as a reason for police to serarch.


What was the reasonable suspicion? That he was black?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> The harm he suffered was the unlawful violations of his 4th Amendment rights.
> 
> This mindset, that he suffered no harm or worse yet, even if he did "so what" is why the police have been allowed to get away with these and even more egregious violations all this time.



Home​Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.
_Payton v. New York_, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).

 However, there are some exceptions. A warrantless search may be lawful:

If an officer is given consent to search; _Davis v. United States_, 328 U.S. 582 (1946)
If the search is incident to a lawful arrest; _United States v. Robinson_, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)
*If there is probable cause to search and exigent circumstances; Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)*
   If the items are in plain view; Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985).





__





						What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean?
					

The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Find cases that help define what the Fourth Amendment means.




					www.uscourts.gov
				




Sorry, you lose.  No constitutional rights were violated here.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

otto105 said:


> What was the reasonable suspicion? That he was black?



My Lord, another public educated person here.  You are responding to a post where I said THE OFFICERS HAD NO IDEA THE RACE OF THE SUSPECTS BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER RELAYED TO THEM BY DISPATCH and you ask such a stupid question.


----------



## White 6

otto105 said:


> We have laws against what the police did.
> 
> Do we not?


Do you want them charged with a criminal act or do you just want a payday?


----------



## otto105

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Home​Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.
> _Payton v. New York_, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).
> 
> However, there are some exceptions. A warrantless search may be lawful:
> 
> If an officer is given consent to search; _Davis v. United States_, 328 U.S. 582 (1946)
> If the search is incident to a lawful arrest; _United States v. Robinson_, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)
> *If there is probable cause to search and exigent circumstances; Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)*
> If the items are in plain view; Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean?
> 
> 
> The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Find cases that help define what the Fourth Amendment means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.uscourts.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you lose.  No constitutional rights were violated here.


A neighbor called on an African-American man doing nothing but sitting on the porch and that is reasonable suspicion?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

otto105 said:


> We have laws against what the police did.
> 
> Do we not?



No we don't.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

otto105 said:


> A neighbor called on an African-American man doing nothing but sitting on the porch and that is reasonable suspicion?



Yes it is because it was an old lady that lived there, not a young guy.


----------



## pknopp

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Home​Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.
> _Payton v. New York_, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).
> 
> However, there are some exceptions. A warrantless search may be lawful:
> 
> If an officer is given consent to search; _Davis v. United States_, 328 U.S. 582 (1946)
> If the search is incident to a lawful arrest; _United States v. Robinson_, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)
> *If there is probable cause to search and exigent circumstances; Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)*
> If the items are in plain view; Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean?
> 
> 
> The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Find cases that help define what the Fourth Amendment means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.uscourts.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you lose.  No constitutional rights were violated here.



 Someone relaxing on their deck is not probable cause.


----------



## pknopp

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes it is because it was an old lady that lived there, not a young guy.



 No, it was their coach.


----------



## otto105

Ray From Cleveland said:


> My Lord, another public educated person here.  You are responding to a post where I said THE OFFICERS HAD NO IDEA THE RACE OF THE SUSPECTS BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER RELAYED TO THEM BY DISPATCH and you ask such a stupid question.


A neighbor called on a man sitting on the patio doing nothing.

Cops show up without a warrant and enter house with guns drawn based on information that a man was sitting on the patio doing nothing.

The only thing clear here ray, is your run to racism which is inline with the karen that called. If he was white, no phone call.


----------



## otto105

Ray From Cleveland said:


> No we don't.


Clear violation of the 4th Amendment, seems pretty clear.

So does the 100K.


----------



## otto105

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes it is because it was an old lady that lived there, not a young guy.


Was the karen who called in anyway in charge of the property? Was it in anyway her responsibility to manage it?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

otto105 said:


> Clear violation of the 4th Amendment, seems pretty clear.
> 
> So does the 100K.



Talking to you leftists is like talking to the wall.  I posted two sites that state it was not a violation of his Forth Amendment rights, and I get the same response as if I were discussing this with a pet dog.  It's like you don't understand a thing I said.


----------



## otto105

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Talking to you leftists is like talking to the wall.  I posted two sites that state it was not a violation of his Forth Amendment rights, and I get the same response as if I were discussing this withy a pet dog.  It's like you don't understand a thing I said.


The judges ruling not withstanding.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

otto105 said:


> Was the karen who called in anyway in charge of the property? Was it in anyway her responsibility to manage it?



It doesn't have to be.  If you see something suspicious, most police departments encourage citizens to call them; to get involved in fighting crime.  I know our police force does.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

otto105 said:


> The judges ruling not withstanding.



Which is why an appeals court needs to look at this.  The judge is wrong.  It clearly fits the definition of the term reasonable suspicion.


----------



## White 6

otto105 said:


> A neighbor called on an African-American man doing nothing but sitting on the porch and that is reasonable suspicion?


Yep.  *Karen Srikes Again.  *Sew her. The Officers just did their job.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

otto105 said:


> A neighbor called on a man sitting on the patio doing nothing.
> 
> Cops show up without a warrant and enter house with guns drawn based on information that a man was sitting on the patio doing nothing.
> 
> The only thing clear here ray, is your run to racism which is inline with the karen that called. If he was white, no phone call.



It's not my fault whites don't normally break into homes.


----------



## otto105

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It doesn't have to be.  If you see something suspicious, most police departments encourage citizens to call them; to get involved in fighting crime.  I know our police force does.


What was suspicious to the officer enough for him to pull his gun?

The man was once sitting on the patio doing nothing, then in his room listening to music....I'll bet it was rap music too!


----------



## otto105

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It's not my fault whites don't normally break into homes.


They do all the time for opioid money.


----------



## otto105

White 6 said:


> Yep.  *Karen Srikes Again.  *Sew her. The Officers just did their job.


What should we sew her?


----------



## otto105

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It doesn't have to be.  If you see something suspicious, most police departments encourage citizens to call them; to get involved in fighting crime.  I know our police force does.


Again, what was the person doing that was suspicious?


----------



## White 6

otto105 said:


> What should we sew her?


Mental anguish, due to her racist discrimination in calling the police, I suppose. 
Face it. The only reason the guy is suing is for the paycheck, not harm, and she does not have the money to make it worthwhile, though she is the one that called the police, giving them probable cause to think a crime was possibly being committed.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

otto105 said:


> Again, what was the person doing that was suspicious?



What is with you leftists anyway?  You ask a question, we give you an answer, and then you ask the same Fn question again?  Is this a mental problem that cause people to be Democrats or something?  From post 110: 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes it is because it was an old lady that lived there, not a young guy.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

otto105 said:


> What was suspicious to the officer enough for him to pull his gun?
> 
> The man was once sitting on the patio doing nothing, then in his room listening to music....I'll bet it was rap music too!



So what if it was?  White people don't listen to that jungle music too?


----------



## otto105

White 6 said:


> Mental anguish, due to her racist discrimination in calling the police, I suppose.
> Face it. The only reason the guy is suing is for the paycheck, not harm, and she does not have the money to make it worthwhile, though she is the one that called the police, giving them probable cause to think a crime was possibly being committed.


That has nothing and I repeat nothing to do with sewing.


----------



## otto105

Ray From Cleveland said:


> What is with you leftists anyway?  You ask a question, we give you an answer, and then you ask the same Fn question again?  Is this a mental problem that cause people to be Democrats or something?  From post 110:


What was the answer?


Besides, you don't want to post black.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

otto105 said:


> What was the answer?
> 
> 
> Besides, you don't want to post black.



You're being sarcastic, right?  I gave you the answer and you respond with "what is the answer?


----------



## Canon Shooter

pknopp said:


> Violating one's civil rights doesn't become acceptable just because they didn't beat him.



While that's certainly true, that doesn't mean that the city should fork over a mountain of cash, either...


----------



## White 6

otto105 said:


> That has nothing and I repeat nothing to do with sewing.


You are correct.  It has nothing to do with sewing.  Of course, we are not discussing dress making.




This was a legal discussion.


----------



## otto105

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You're being sarcastic, right?  I gave you the answer and you respond with "what is the answer?


The reason was....?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I am.  In fact I'd thank them.


Bullshit.


----------



## Jarlaxle

pknopp said:


> I believe the violations of our Constitutional rights should be an arrest able offense.


I believe they should be punished with public crucifixion.


----------



## Jarlaxle

White 6 said:


> If I were in that situation, and it handled that way, no violence, no disrespect, no abuse on the cuffing and I was smiling and chatting at the end, I would not be drawn into filing a lawsuit, just to get some free money from the city.
> It would not happen that way though.  If I was asleep in the back, not hearing somebody (cops or anybody else outside, Lexi, my 90 lb. very territorial and protective of family, German Shepherd would have never let them in the door (which would most likely be locked), until I was up, and gave her a command to get her to stand down and go to another room.


You would probably have a dead dog. You might also end up dead.


----------



## woodwork201

White 6 said:


> Looks like lawsuit is BS to me.  Furdge should not have sued.  He was not abused while the put cuffs on for the protection of everybody involved and even checked with Furdge if the cuff fit was ok and it was.  Officer were not abusive in speech.  It was quickly resolved as probably proper and OK.  Cuffs were removed while awaiting confirmation.  By the end, Furdge was conversational and smiling while talking.  Officer apologized for the intrusion.  Yep.  Lawsuit was BS and the judge full of BS.



There was no probable cause or reasonable suspicion.  Just like a person exercising their right to bear arms is not reason for the police to search or investigate them, even when an ignorant neighbor calls the police about a man with a gun.

Someone was in a house the lady did not own.  He wasn't carrying out TVs or anything else; he was sitting on the porch.  This is neither suspicious nor threatening.  How many burglars hang out on the porch?

If this were allowed to stand then any time a person (it would happen to black people for more often than white) moves into a house without getting permission from the neighbors they would be subject to home invasion by the police, and arrest without cause until they can prove they have the right to be where they are.

As for the requirement to suffer loss in order to get compensation, there are plenty of examples that permit punitive damages.  A quick google didn't yield laws explicitly permitting punitive damages but for those going to challenge the word of the judge who, presumably, knows the law, it would be on them to show the law saying it's not applicable here.

That Furdge was conversational means nothing.  We all say that the best practice when dealing with a over-zealous cop is to be polite and follow direction and to deal with it later in the court.  Now you're suggesting that because he appeared to follow that sage advice, it's evidence that he wasn't wronged and didn't feel wronged when it happened.   I can guarantee you that any time a cop  comes into my house, guns drawn (or not drawn) and puts me in handcuffed I would feel wronged.  Considering the history of housing abuses against black people, Furdge would reasonably feel even more wronged than I might.

The cop should have told the lady that she should mind her own business.  At most, if the cop were to investigate at all, he should have contacted the owner of the home.  Failing to contact the home owner, he could have just walked away.

For a brief second, I thought about the risk of something happening to the homeowner, if they weren't able to contact them, so the cop might feel it's a welfare check.  But that means that any time I, or you, or anyone in the United States, has company over and they sit on the porch alone, they're subject to arrest, or even being shot.  

What if Furdge had assumed whoever was coming in the front door might have been a threat so he grabbed a legally owned gun?  Had Furdge done that, he'd be dead right now.

The cop needs to be sued.  The police department needs to be sued.  They racist neighbor needs to be sued.  When it's over, Furdge should own her house and not need the loan of a place to live from the coach.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Ray From Cleveland said:


> He should be removed either way.  Just another anti-cop leftist making things worse in our country.


Is there ANYTHING a cop could do that would make you not lick his boots?


----------



## Golfing Gator

Ray From Cleveland said:


> And????



and that is not Reasonable Suspicion of a crime being committed.


----------



## Jarlaxle

White 6 said:


> Do you want them charged with a criminal act or do you just want a payday?


I'd like to see the cops shit-canned and the neighbor that called charged.


----------



## Jarlaxle

otto105 said:


> What was suspicious to the officer enough for him to pull his gun?
> 
> The man was once sitting on the patio doing nothing, then in his room listening to music....I'll bet it was rap music too!


I suspect he hoped that this was the day he got to kill someone.


----------



## White 6

Jarlaxle said:


> You would probably have a dead dog. You might also end up dead.


Quite possibly, but I've had most of my fun and coming into my house, with me in innocent circumstance, killing my dog or any other family member, would be a cause worth my life, and I undoubtedly would not be going alone.  I'm sure you are the same way.  Or is your life absolutely that important to you at your stage of existence?


----------



## Jarlaxle

White 6 said:


> Quite possibly, but I've had most of my fun and coming into my house, with me in innocent circumstance, killing my dog or any other family member, would be a cause worth my life, and I undoubtedly would not be going alone.  I'm sure you are the same way.  Or is your life absolutely that important to you at your stage of existence?


What?!


----------



## White 6

Jarlaxle said:


> What?!


I'm 67 still enjoying a full life, but what indignity or attack in my innocence, do you expect me to tolerate, just for the privilege of living another day in subjugation, where I should accept that kind of action by anybody inside my home without immediate repercussion to the one doing it as the price of that next breath?


----------



## Jarlaxle

White 6 said:


> I'm 67 still enjoying a full life, but what indignity or attack in my innocence, do you expect me to tolerate, just for the privilege of living another day in subjugation, where I should accept that kind of action by anybody inside my home without immediate repercussion to the one doing it as the price of that next breath?


Well...I figured you might rather not have your wife or children murdered. You might prefer to not be shot and left to bleed out.


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It's not my fault whites don't normally break into homes.



I've had my car broken into 3 times in the past 10 years.  My home broken into and robbed 1 time in the past 10 years.  3 other times in the past 10 years I caught the perpetrators trying to break in my home - actually pushing on the door, prying on the door, and just about to kick in the door, respectively - and scared them off before they could get in.  

Even though the neighborhood I live in is fairly mixed race neighborhood, about 40% Hispanic, 40% white, 20% black, each and every case where I've had criminals try to cause me or mine harm, it has been a white person.

I understand the statistics nation wide, in South-side Chicago, Baltimore, etc.  Even so, my personal experience is completely different so I generally expect or assume a white person when a crime happens around me.  Probably you and I both should just not make assumptions at all.


----------



## woodwork201

White 6 said:


> I'm 67 still enjoying a full life, but what indignity or attack in my innocence, do you expect me to tolerate, just for the privilege of living another day in subjugation, where I should accept that kind of action by anybody inside my home without immediate repercussion to the one doing it as the price of that next breath?


And yet you admit that you're a leftist, Democrat.  So you vote for people who would force all the rest of us to tolerate the things you say you won't tolerate.  Interesting.


----------



## Jarlaxle

woodwork201 said:


> I've had my car broken into 3 times in the past 10 years.  My home broken into and robbed 1 time in the past 10 years.  3 other times in the past 10 years I caught the perpetrators trying to break in my home - actually pushing on the door, prying on the door, and just about to kick in the door, respectively - and scared them off before they could get in.
> 
> Even though the neighborhood I live in is fairly mixed race neighborhood, about 40% Hispanic, 40% white, 20% black, each and every case where I've had criminals try to cause me or mine harm, it has been a white person.
> 
> I understand the statistics nation wide, in South-side Chicago, Baltimore, etc.  Even so, my personal experience is completely different so I generally expect or assume a white person when a crime happens around me.  Probably you and I both should just not make assumptions at all.


You need to move.


----------



## woodwork201

White 6 said:


> Do you want them charged with a criminal act or do you just want a payday?



18 U.S. Code § 242 -  Deprivation of rights under color of law​Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;​
The Constitution combined with this Federal law trumps all state laws granting qualified immunity.


----------



## woodwork201

Jarlaxle said:


> You need to move.


When I retire to the country.  Soon.


----------



## pknopp

Canon Shooter said:


> While that's certainly true, that doesn't mean that the city should fork over a mountain of cash, either...



 It says that the court is not allowing the officer qualified immunity so we will see what washes out in the end.


----------



## White 6

Jarlaxle said:


> Well...I figured you might rather not have your wife or children murdered. You might prefer to not be shot and left to bleed out.


No children live in my house.  My immediate family members in the house are my wife, myself, and our very protective 90 lb German Shepherd, Lexie, whom we love very much.
Don't worry your pretty little head, though.  She would alert me, and does the moment anyone comes onto the porch.  She was on the back deck and alerted day before yesterday to the empty house next door, awaiting repairs, when police came into their backyard looking for a little missing girl from the neighborhood. She has several barks, yips and growls, but there is no confusing or ignoring when she alerts and warns.  I came out with my weapon at my side then, but when I went to the poolside fence, while having her wait on the deck, I re-holstered, said hello to the guys and chatted as they came to the fence to show me the pic.  I've been here over 35 years, and am a known and well thought of fixture in the neighborhood, have dealt with the police and heading up the local neighborhood watch.  It's a small city.  Sacramento this ain't.  When the police have been called, the neighbors call me.  At times, of extreme emergency they have called me before the ambulance.  A scenario of anybody, I mean anybody coming into my house and shooting my dog or anybody else, without me already knowing they were there is unimaginable.  That said, my home is my castle, in a castle doctrine state, and I would defend it in a heartbeat from all comers.


----------



## White 6

woodwork201 said:


> And yet you admit that you're a leftist, Democrat.  So you vote for people who would force all the rest of us to tolerate the things you say you won't tolerate.  Interesting.


I never have, since I am not.  I have probably voted for republicans as often as democrats and never made a secret on here of being Independent with a capital "I".  You are just sloppy with your brushstrokes, another starving artist of the political pool hall/barber shop boys, no doubt.


----------



## White 6

woodwork201 said:


> 18 U.S. Code § 242 -  Deprivation of rights under color of law​Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;​
> The Constitution combined with this Federal law trumps all state laws granting qualified immunity.


Oh, have they been charged with a crime under federal or state statute or is this just a lawsuit.  If it is all the same to you, I will go along with the verdict of a jury of their peers on the criminal charges.  But, this is just a play to get some pay, as suing has become the American way.  Have a nice day.


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Police don't always need a warrant to conduct a search.  I already posted evidence of that with a link.


We might disagree on whether the word of the neighbor provided reasonable suspicion to search but where was the probable cause to arrest and cuff?

Even to believe there was reasonable suspicion, it has to be what a reasonable or typical person would think.  Would a reasonable person think that someone they don't know sitting on a porch was  suspicious and that it was an indication that a crime may have been committed?  Of course not.  There was no reasonable suspicion.

I find it troublesome when so-called conservatives use Supreme Court decisions as proof of anything.  In almost every Supreme Court decision, some of those supposedly scholarly men and women vote one way, some vote another.  That, in and of itself, is absolute proof that, as a whole, they don't know what the hell they're talking about.  When they say guns can be banned, do you quote them as the answer? Of course not.

At most, in any discussion of law, liberty, rights, and the Constitution, the Supreme Court is, at the very best, something to consider.  Just because their judicial precedence trumps any lower court, it doesn't make it right.  That the Supreme Court has allowed reasonable suspicion as the threshold for a search doesn't change the fact that the Constitution clearly sets the threshold as probable cause.

In 1968, in Terry, the Supreme Court declared the Constitution, specifically the 4th Amendment, unconstitutional when they ruled that a cop can search a person when they had reasonable suspicion that a crime was about the be committed - not probable cause and not that a crime had been committed.  And the standard they set?  No, not that a reasonable person would suspect that a crime was about to be committed but whether a reasonable police officer would think a crime was about to be committed.  

They ruled that the legitimate government interests override the Constitution that created the government.  And who gets to decide what are the legitimate interests of the government?  We used to think that was defined and limited by the Constitution but it turns out that, according to the Supreme Court,  it is the government that gets to decide what are the legitimate interests of the government and when their self-determined interests conflict with the Constitution then the Constitution does not apply.

In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled, in Connor, to expand reasonable suspicion and reiterated the standard that what was reasonable for the police to do is what the police say is reasonable for the police to do, not what the Constitution says they can do.

No crime was committed by Furdge and there was no probable cause.  Not that it should matter, but the officer's suspicion was not reasonable and did not justify his actions  in violation of the rights of Furdge.


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Home​Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.
> _Payton v. New York_, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).
> 
> However, there are some exceptions. A warrantless search may be lawful:
> 
> If an officer is given consent to search; _Davis v. United States_, 328 U.S. 582 (1946)
> If the search is incident to a lawful arrest; _United States v. Robinson_, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)
> *If there is probable cause to search and exigent circumstances; Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)*
> If the items are in plain view; Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean?
> 
> 
> The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Find cases that help define what the Fourth Amendment means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.uscourts.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you lose.  No constitutional rights were violated here.


What was the probable cause and exigent circumstances.  One part of the law and jurisprudence both regarding reasonable suspicion and probable cause is that the police must be able to articulate the reasonable suspicion or probable cause.  If you're going to defend them without question, you must be able to articulate the reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause that justifies the cop's behavior.  Please let us know what that is.


----------



## woodwork201

White 6, I take your laughing response with no answer to my post as your admission that you have no intelligent response to counter my proof that the cop violated Furdge's Constitutional rights.


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> My Lord, another public educated person here.  You are responding to a post where I said THE OFFICERS HAD NO IDEA THE RACE OF THE SUSPECTS BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER RELAYED TO THEM BY DISPATCH and you ask such a stupid question.



That's an assumption on your part.  Did the cop talk to the lady who called in the complaint or did he go into someone's home with his gun drawn completely on the word of the dispatcher with no other investigation.  I'm not sure which case would be the greater abuse of power on the part of the cop.


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes that's why she called. So what?  It doesn't mention what their coaches race was since it was his mother that owned the house and apparently just passed away.  If she was white and two black guys are in and out of the house, she had every reason to call.  Even if their coach was black and the mother also, it's still two younger guys in a house of an old lady.


So every time a black family rents or buys a house that was previously occupied by a white person, that's reason to call the police?  

And every time a white person buys or rents a house that was previously occupied by a black person, that's reason to call the police and for the police to enter the home now of the white family with their guns drawn?


----------



## woodwork201

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> The harm he suffered was the unlawful violations of his 4th Amendment rights.
> 
> This mindset, that he suffered no harm or worse yet, even if he did "so what" is why the police have been allowed to get away with these and even more egregious violations all this time.


When I read the article the first time, I missed the link at the bottom to show the rest of the article.  In that originally-hidden portion, it says the judge tossed the punitive damages because the cops had good intention.  That's just plain asinine.  They may have intended to stop crime but they intended to stop crime by violating the rights of someone who they had no evidence was committing a crime.  That's absolutely a violation by intent and they need to be sued and jailed.


----------



## woodwork201

pknopp said:


> I believe the violations of our Constitutional rights should be an arrest able offense.


It is.  I posted the law earlier.  These cops belong in jail.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

woodwork201 said:


> So every time a black family rents or buys a house that was previously occupied by a white person, that's reason to call the police?
> 
> And every time a white person buys or rents a house that was previously occupied by a black person, that's reason to call the police and for the police to enter the home now of the white family with their guns drawn?



If you know them well enough yes.  My neighbor is an older white guy.  If I see two black guys in or around his house yes, I'm calling the police.  I know who lives there and I know these people should not be there. 

Much different than if my elderly white neighbor was a landlord and I'm fully aware of it.  The guy next door to me bought the two houses on that property as rental income.  Nobody has lived there in a year.  If I see new people in and out of either house, it would not be suspicious to me.  If it's 2:00 am and I see them leaving the house with copper water pipes, I would call the police.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

woodwork201 said:


> That's an assumption on your part.  Did the cop talk to the lady who called in the complaint or did he go into someone's home with his gun drawn completely on the word of the dispatcher with no other investigation.  I'm not sure which case would be the greater abuse of power on the part of the cop.



According to the OP it didn't mention the cops talk with the complainant; they seldom do.  They get a suspicious character call and they address the problem.


----------



## pknopp

Ray From Cleveland said:


> According to the OP it didn't mention the cops talk with the complainant; they seldom do.  They get a suspicious character call and they address the problem.



 There was no problem.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

woodwork201 said:


> What was the probable cause and exigent circumstances.  One part of the law and jurisprudence both regarding reasonable suspicion and probable cause is that the police must be able to articulate the reasonable suspicion or probable cause.  If you're going to defend them without question, you must be able to articulate the reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause that justifies the cop's behavior.  Please let us know what that is.



Read all the posts in the topic, I said what that suspicion was repeatedly.  There were people in the house that didn't live there.


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> What's the difference?  Criminals are bold these days.  Because he was sitting on the balcony doesn't mean he wasn't in the process of robbing the place.  There have been stories of burglars making themselves a snack on the stove of the victims.



So now being anywhere, doing perfectly lawful stuff, is suspicious?  I mean the cops have argued that successfully in the courts before.  Driving the speed limit is suspicious.  Driving cautiously is suspicious.


----------



## Jarlaxle

woodwork201 said:


> White 6, I take your laughing response with no answer to my post as your admission that you have no intelligent response to counter my proof that the cop violated Furdge's Constitutional rights.


He's a copsucker.


----------



## pknopp

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Read all the posts in the topic, I said what that suspicion was repeatedly.  There were people in the house that didn't live there.



 They did live there.


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I wouldn't call a neighbor that lives there calling in a potential house robbery zero evidence.  Apparently the neighbor did know who lived there and these guys weren't it.


Apparently, absolutely even, the neighbor had no idea who lived there because those guys WERE it.


----------



## woodwork201

pknopp said:


> She isn't the one who violated his rights.


Exactly.  We expect those who have guns and power to put us in handcuffs to be smarter than the idiot neighbor and not blindly do stuff that stupid people ask them to do.

Thank God that Furdge did not grab a legally owned gun when someone entered his house.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

woodwork201 said:


> We might disagree on whether the word of the neighbor provided reasonable suspicion to search but where was the probable cause to arrest and cuff?
> 
> Even to believe there was reasonable suspicion, it has to be what a reasonable or typical person would think.  Would a reasonable person think that someone they don't know sitting on a porch was  suspicious and that it was an indication that a crime may have been committed?  Of course not.  There was no reasonable suspicion.
> 
> I find it troublesome when so-called conservatives use Supreme Court decisions as proof of anything.  In almost every Supreme Court decision, some of those supposedly scholarly men and women vote one way, some vote another.  That, in and of itself, is absolute proof that, as a whole, they don't know what the hell they're talking about.  When they say guns can be banned, do you quote them as the answer? Of course not.
> 
> At most, in any discussion of law, liberty, rights, and the Constitution, the Supreme Court is, at the very best, something to consider.  Just because their judicial precedence trumps any lower court, it doesn't make it right.  That the Supreme Court has allowed reasonable suspicion as the threshold for a search doesn't change the fact that the Constitution clearly sets the threshold as probable cause.
> 
> In 1968, in Terry, the Supreme Court declared the Constitution, specifically the 4th Amendment, unconstitutional when they ruled that a cop can search a person when they had reasonable suspicion that a crime was about the be committed - not probable cause and not that a crime had been committed.  And the standard they set?  No, not that a reasonable person would suspect that a crime was about to be committed but whether a reasonable police officer would think a crime was about to be committed.
> 
> They ruled that the legitimate government interests override the Constitution that created the government.  And who gets to decide what are the legitimate interests of the government?  We used to think that was defined and limited by the Constitution but it turns out that, according to the Supreme Court,  it is the government that gets to decide what are the legitimate interests of the government and when their self-determined interests conflict with the Constitution then the Constitution does not apply.
> 
> In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled, in Connor, to expand reasonable suspicion and reiterated the standard that what was reasonable for the police to do is what the police say is reasonable for the police to do, not what the Constitution says they can do.
> 
> No crime was committed by Furdge and there was no probable cause.  Not that it should matter, but the officer's suspicion was not reasonable and did not justify his actions  in violation of the rights of Furdge.



First of all the guy was never arrested.  Police often cuff suspects for their own safety until they can conclude what's going on.  I've seen it repeatedly on the classic police show C*O*P*S.  I also seen police do the same in my neighborhood.  Perfectly legal as the officer explains he is not cuffing the person because they are under arrest.  Secondly, what did you want police to do?  Since you didn't read any of the past posts, I'll present a scenario I posted earlier: 

You come home after being in the hospital for four days.  You find your home ransacked and all your valuables gone.  Like anybody else, you call the police.  Here is how the conversation would go:

This is Mr. Woodwork, and my house was robbed while I was in the hospital.  
_Sorry to hear that, we'll send somebody down, what is your address? _
111 Blaker street. 
_Oh yes, we were there the other day while your house was being robbed.  Your neighbor called it in._
And you didn't do anything? 
_No we didn't, our officer knocked at the door, but nobody answered.  Apparently they were on the phone or had some music on._
So what did your officer do? 
_Nothing, he just went back to his car and came back to the station. _
Why didn't he go into my home to check things out??? 
_We didn't know if he should be there or not, and we didn't want to violate his constitutional rights! _

Tell me you'd be okay with this if it actually happened.


----------



## woodwork201

White 6 said:


> Karen is the one that gave the police reasonable suspicion a crime might be taking place.  They had to follow up.  It is their job.


Wrong.  That's not reasonable suspicion.  

A tip can generate reasonable suspicion when the informant describes a crime taking place.  The informant in this case could not describe a crime and that's what the police should have determined.  A 2 minute conversation with the neighbor would have demonstrated that there was no crime.  The police could have reasonably knocked on the door and waited for a response, gone to the back door and knocked, as well.  Having a friendly, voluntary, conversation with Furdge would have been reasonable.  Beyond that, there's nothing else the police could do.


----------



## woodwork201

Mac-7 said:


> The cops had no way of knowing that when they arrived at the scene


They also  had nothing to indicate that the house was being robbed.


----------



## woodwork201

cnm said:


> Well if police cuffed me in my own residence I'd be on the phone to a lawyer before they were out the door.


And, in fact, I would have asked for an attorney before telling them anything.  When you're arrested, and being cuffed is arrested, do not talk to the police.


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> How would you punch in the numbers?


When the cuffs came off, my next words would be, "Hold on, please, while I call my attorney."


----------



## White 6

woodwork201 said:


> White 6, I take your laughing response with no answer to my post as your admission that you have no intelligent response to counter my proof that the cop violated Furdge's Constitutional rights.


What did you say the criminal charges were?  I have been unclear on this, from the start.  Is this a lawsuit seeking monetary damages or a criminal trial?  I see no damage.  I will wait to see the award on cases like this.  I am pleased with the conduct of the officers involved.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

woodwork201 said:


> I've had my car broken into 3 times in the past 10 years.  My home broken into and robbed 1 time in the past 10 years.  3 other times in the past 10 years I caught the perpetrators trying to break in my home - actually pushing on the door, prying on the door, and just about to kick in the door, respectively - and scared them off before they could get in.
> 
> Even though the neighborhood I live in is fairly mixed race neighborhood, about 40% Hispanic, 40% white, 20% black, each and every case where I've had criminals try to cause me or mine harm, it has been a white person.
> 
> I understand the statistics nation wide, in South-side Chicago, Baltimore, etc.  Even so, my personal experience is completely different so I generally expect or assume a white person when a crime happens around me.  Probably you and I both should just not make assumptions at all.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Jarlaxle said:


> I'd like to see the cops shit-canned and the neighbor that called charged.



Charged with what?  Criminals of our country love people like you.  You make their crimes so easy to do.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Golfing Gator said:


> and that is not Reasonable Suspicion of a crime being committed.



it's reasonable suspicion to enter a house where a potential crime is taking place.


----------



## White 6

woodwork201 said:


> Wrong.  That's not reasonable suspicion.
> 
> A tip can generate reasonable suspicion when the informant describes a crime taking place.  The informant in this case could not describe a crime and that's what the police should have determined.  A 2 minute conversation with the neighbor would have demonstrated that there was no crime.  The police could have reasonably knocked on the door and waited for a response, gone to the back door and knocked, as well.  Having a friendly, voluntary, conversation with Furdge would have been reasonable.  Beyond that, there's nothing else the police could do.


That is a stretch to say Karen's report to 911 did not describe a crime.  They did knock on the door.  The door was open and they entered to preserve evidence of the possible perpetrator in the house, hearing him in the house, but not responding.  If the officers were charged with a crime, I have not heard of it.  I'll wait to hear the award to see how seriously the damage is taken in this case and the result of appeals.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

otto105 said:


> The reason was....?



I don't normally deal with the mentally retarded.  I don't have the training.  So the last time:  

SOMEBODY WAS IN THE HOUSE THAT DIDN'T LIVE THERE!  THEY WERE NOT ONLY IN AND OUT OF THE HOUSE, THEY WERE OF A COMPLETELY GENERATION DIFFERENT THAN THE HOME OWNER. 

If you have any more questions, please ask your aid to read this topic and explain it to you with crayons or however they relate to people like yourself.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

woodwork201 said:


> When the cuffs came off, my next words would be, "Hold on, please, while I call my attorney."



Call them.  The police did nothing wrong and an appeals court will determine that.


----------



## Mac-7

woodwork201 said:


> They also had nothing to indicate that the house was being robbed.


You want to prevent the police from responding to 911 calls?

you may not have thought about it but thats what you are saying


----------



## whitehall

The system works and nobody was killed. The Police thought someone's life was in danger but it seems they were wrong. Do lefties really want to turn it int a federal case?


----------



## Colin norris

White 6 said:


> Looks like lawsuit is BS to me.  Furdge should not have sued.  He was not abused while the put cuffs on for the protection of everybody involved and even checked with Furdge if the cuff fit was ok and it was.  Officer were not abusive in speech.  It was quickly resolved as probably proper and OK.  Cuffs were removed while awaiting confirmation.  By the end, Furdge was conversational and smiling while talking.  Officer apologized for the intrusion.  Yep.  Lawsuit was BS and the judge full of BS.


Did you read it? 
He violated his constitutional right. 
You know. The same as the first, second and the fifth.  

Might be because youre a racist.


----------



## g5000

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I am.  In fact I'd thank them.
> 
> So let's say this guy didn't live there and he was robbing the place as the neighbor suspected.  The police call him out and he doesn't respond.  They just shrug their shoulders and leave, would you be happy about that if you were the home owner and some clown ripped you off for 10 grand and your guns?


Yeah.  Sitting on the front steps, robbing the place.

Okay.  

"Sir, you are suspected of Lounging While Black.  Also, Singing While Black."


----------



## g5000

I just watched the police camera video.  The cops didn't knock or ring the doorbell.  In fact, they crept up to the door and opened it stealthily.

Then they shouted who they were.  The guy did not respond and you can hear him singing to himself.

Man, if that doesn't signal we have a dangerous violent criminal on our hands, nothing does!  We better draw our weapons.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

g5000 said:


> I just watched the police camera video.  The cops didn't knock or ring the doorbell.  In fact, they crept up to the door and opened it stealthily.
> 
> Then they shouted who they were.  The guy did not respond and you can hear him singing to himself.
> 
> Man, if that doesn't signal we have a dangerous violent criminal on our hands, nothing does!  We better draw our weapons.



So you never read stories about criminals making themselves at home by getting something to eat out of the victims refrigerator or cooking on their stove?  You never read about stories of a drugged up or drunk person thinking they were sleeping on their own couch when it was that of a stranger they never met?  

You said cops as in plural.  But the OP reads that it was one police officer that originally knocked at the door and yelled for the subject to come out.  Before he entered the home, he called for backup so there were two of them obviously for safety reasons.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

g5000 said:


> Yeah.  Sitting on the front steps, robbing the place.
> 
> Okay.
> 
> "Sir, you are suspected of Lounging While Black.  Also, Singing While Black."



Your comprehension skills suffer.  In the OP it reads the neighbor stated he was outside on the patio.  When the officer arrived he was inside the house.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Colin norris said:


> Did you read it?
> He violated his constitutional right.
> You know. The same as the first, second and the fifth.
> 
> Might be because youre a racist.



The courts have already ruled (and I posted a link) that reasonable suspicion gives an officer the right to search a vehicle or home.  No rights were violated.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

whitehall said:


> The system works and nobody was killed. The Police thought someone's life was in danger but it seems they were wrong. Do lefties really want to turn it int a federal case?



Leftists are the most myopic people in our country.  They have no imagination to put the shoe on the other foot.  As I asked, if somebody robbed their home, found out the police responded to the complaint by the neighbor, and simply left because there was no response by the suspect, they'd be having a shit fit.  They would be suing the officers, suing the city, and complaining that our police are not doing their jobs.


----------



## g5000

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Your comprehension skills suffer.  In the OP it reads the neighbor stated he was outside on the patio.  When the officer arrived he was inside the house.


Yes, he was Lounging While Black which was cause enough to send a police unit to look into it.

Okay.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

g5000 said:


> Yes, he was Lounging While Black which was cause enough to send a police unit to look into it.
> 
> Okay.



No, it was a person not known to live there why the police were called.  You leftists love to make up stories that never existed before.


----------



## White 6

Colin norris said:


> Did you read it?
> He violated his constitutional right.
> You know. The same as the first, second and the fifth.
> 
> Might be because youre a racist.


No.  Might be, I just think the police investigated a report, controlled the situation for the safety of all involved and left, after the situation was clarified, not even keep the guy cuffed, while they waited for confirmation, nobody arrested, nobody struck or physically injured , shot, cussed or verbally abused.  
*I guess I have higher levels of tolerance than you*, coming from a different time here in the south.  I got taken into custody one time, transported across county lines, locked up for maybe two hours, while the out of county sheriff and deputies questioned each of us (73 of us) about drugs, drinking, etc.  Upon release without charges (as I was sober, not under the influence of drugs or alcohol)  I found the Sheriff's department had broken into my van, found my spare key, and used it without my permission to haul a van load of young adults and juveniles (while I was locked in the back of a squad car, refusing to unlock the the van for an illegal search without a warrant) across county lines (out of their jurisdiction) to the jail.  In doing so, they broke a window out of the track, allowing them to gain entry, finding my spare key,they loaded prisoners,  damaging the mount on my new Craig Quadraphonic 8-track player and knocked one of the 1 ft speakers off it's mounts on one of the rear doors.  When I went back into the jail to ask who was going pay for or fix the damages on the van (3 weeks off the new car lot), I was told by the sheriff of that county to get the hell out of there, right then or would be thrown back in jail until Monday morning and not to come back to his county.  Those are fairly significant violation of my rights.  My dad called a friend of the family, Judge Pelham McMurray in Paducah, Ky. where we had moved from.  I went back and politely ask for my van to be fixed, again was told I was getting ready to go back in the jail, whereupon I gave him the direct line phone number to the judge, recommending he call before anything rash was done.  The judge explained that Federal warrants for his arrest would be forthcoming within 24 hours for a variety of federal offenses if the sheriff re-evaluate his  idea of law enforcement in this matter, and recommended the sheriff reconsider the request for damages.  My new van and equipment were totally repaired, but I was advised not to come back to that town or county as they would be on the lookout for the only bright red, new Chevy van with chrome wheel and wide tires and speeding tickets at the very least would result.
*I did not sue* and did not go back for a couple of years. I had been returned to (in my opinion) the status quo anti, prior to the misadventure, counting myself lucky, knowing if they had arrived 45 minutes later, I would have indeed been, not only drunker than hell, but stoned out of my gourd. The year was 1974, the town Camden, TN, the party was Bruceton Tennessee high school graduation party in Carroll County at the sand pits between Bruceton and Camden, the sheriff was Jerry Phiefer, who about two years later (coincidentally) would be indicted on several of a variety of charges, such as mail fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to bootlegging in that dry county, extortion, etc, etc, etc. We've had some very colorful sheriffs in West Tennessee.
I told you that, to prove I am a no harm no foul kind of guy, when it comes to law enforcement.


----------



## Colin norris

White 6 said:


> No.  Might be, I just think the police investigated a report, controlled the situation for the safety of all involved and left, after the situation was clarified, not even keep the guy cuffed, while they waited for confirmation, nobody arrested, nobody struck or physically injured , shot, cussed or verbally abused.
> *I guess I have higher levels of tolerance than you*, coming from a different time here in the south.  I got taken into custody one time, transported across county lines, locked up for maybe two hours, while the out of county sheriff and deputies questioned each of us (73 of us) about drugs, drinking, etc.  Upon release without charges (as I was sober, not under the influence of drugs or alcohol)  I found the Sheriff's department had broken into my van, found my spare key, and used it without my permission to haul a van load of young adults and juveniles (while I was locked in the back of a squad car, refusing to unlock the the van for an illegal search without a warrant) across county lines (out of their jurisdiction) to the jail.  In doing so, they broke a window out of the track, allowing them to gain entry, finding my spare key,they loaded prisoners,  damaging the mount on my new Craig Quadraphonic 8-track player and knocked one of the 1 ft speakers off it's mounts on one of the rear doors.  When I went back into the jail to ask who was going pay for or fix the damages on the van (3 weeks off the new car lot), I was told by the sheriff of that county to get the hell out of there, right then or would be thrown back in jail until Monday morning and not to come back to his county.  Those are fairly significant violation of my rights.  My dad called a friend of the family, Judge Pelham McMurray in Paducah, Ky. where we had moved from.  I went back and politely ask for my van to be fixed, again was told I was getting ready to go back in the jail, whereupon I gave him the direct line phone number to the judge, recommending he call before anything rash was done.  The judge explained that Federal warrants for his arrest would be forthcoming within 24 hours for a variety of federal offenses if the sheriff re-evaluate his  idea of law enforcement in this matter, and recommended the sheriff reconsider the request for damages.  My new van and equipment were totally repaired, but I was advised not to come back to that town or county as they would be on the lookout for the only bright red, new Chevy van with chrome wheel and wide tires and speeding tickets at the very least would result.
> *I did not sue* and did not go back for a couple of years. I had been returned to (in my opinion) the status quo anti, prior to the misadventure, counting myself lucky, knowing if they had arrived 45 minutes later, I would have indeed been, not only drunker than hell, but stoned out of my gourd. The year was 1974, the town Camden, TN, the party was Bruceton Tennessee high school graduation party in Carroll County at the sand pits between Bruceton and Camden, the sheriff was Jerry Phiefer, who about two years later (coincidentally) would be indicted on several of a variety of charges, such as mail fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to bootlegging in that dry county, extortion, etc, etc, etc. We've had some very colorful sheriffs in West Tennessee.
> I told you that, to prove I am a no harm no foul kind of guy, when it comes to law enforcement.


On case you missed the judges decision, he gave him the kid. 
End of story. The coppers were wrong and rightfully apologised. They are racists.


----------



## White 6

Colin norris said:


> On case you missed the judges decision, he gave him the kid.
> End of story. The coppers were wrong and rightfully apologised. They are racists.


Heck they apologized on camera to the guy, while they waited for confirmation from the landlord, with the poor, poor victim was smiling and talking with them.  Just somebody looking for a pay day.  Here it would have been tossed.


----------



## Colin norris

White 6 said:


> Heck they apologized on camera to the guy, while they waited for confirmation from the landlord, with the poor, poor victim was smiling and talking with them.  Just somebody looking for a pay day.  Here it would have been tossed.


Sorry mate.  You are wrong and the judge proved it. Piss off.


----------



## cnm

White 6 said:


> I'm 67 still enjoying a full life, but what indignity or attack in my innocence, do you expect me to tolerate, just for the privilege of living another day in subjugation, where I should accept that kind of action by anybody inside my home without immediate repercussion to the one doing it as the price of that next breath?


Yet Furdge should accept his home being invaded with equanimity?


----------



## White 6

Colin norris said:


> Sorry mate.  You are wrong and the judge proved it. Piss off.


That judge doesn't live here.  That is Wisconsin.  Here that would not have made it to trial court as a nuisance lawsuit.  You piss off.  Just another guy looking for a free paycheck.  Without harm, lets see how much he gets.  I doubt he will be quitting his day job, if he has one.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

cnm said:


> Yet Furdge should accept his home being invaded with equanimity?



It wasn't his home, it was the home of his coaches mother.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Colin norris said:


> On case you missed the judges decision, he gave him the kid.
> End of story. The coppers were wrong and rightfully apologised. They are racists.



Why are they racists?  They had no idea who was in the house because dispatch never relayed the description of the suspect.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The judge is in the wrong. Police do have that right, it's called reasonable suspicion. This guy didn't live there previously and criminals often target homes of the deceased. When my neighbor passed away from lung cancer somebody broke into her home and stole all the copper pipes.
> 
> In any case they had a testimony from a neighbor that a stranger was in the house that shouldn't be there.



Except they had the owner's permission to live there, so no, it wasn't a reasonable suspicion other than, "THere's a scary black man living next door!!!!" 

Hope they take this cop for every fucking thing he has.



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Right, and while they are knocking a real burglar would be sneaking out the other door. Maybe after they knocked for 20 minutes, he'd be home by then with all the jewelry, cash and guns he stole.



So what if he was?  Funny thing, if someone broke into my house, there would be no cash, jewelry or guns lying around to steal.  I would keep those things in a safe or somewhere safe.


----------



## struth

pknopp said:


> We are making inroads in making it even better.


the law works, your own thread proves that.

but what are your inroads?


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You have to suppose with a story like this.
> 
> If I came home and found my house had been robbed, called the police, and they told me there were here while I was being robbed, I think I'd be pretty pissed about it.
> 
> You were here and you didn't arrest them, why?
> Because we called whoever was in the house out and he didn't respond, so we just left!
> You left after my neighbor called you out telling you there was somebody in my house that wasn't me?
> Yeah, you know, we didn't want to violate his rights just in case they were allowed to be there!
> So you didn't pursue the matter further until you knew for sure?
> You betcha!



Well, they didn't have probable cause to go busting in, as you weren't there to tell them they did. 

It was pretty clear the neighbor didn't know the owners well enough to know WHO was supposed to be there.  Otherwise, she'd have called the owner before the cops.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Well, they didn't have probable cause to go busting in, as you weren't there to tell them they did.
> 
> It was pretty clear the neighbor didn't know the owners well enough to know WHO was supposed to be there.  Otherwise, she'd have called the owner before the cops.



Read the OP.  The owner recently passed away.


----------



## pknopp

struth said:


> the law works, your own thread proves that.
> 
> but what are your inroads?



 We have discussed this many times.


----------



## struth

pknopp said:


> We have discussed this many times.


have we? then it shouldn’t be a problem for you to show me


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Except they had the owner's permission to live there, so no, it wasn't a reasonable suspicion other than, "THere's a scary black man living next door!!!!"
> 
> Hope they take this cop for every fucking thing he has.



So HTF are the police supposed to know the owner died and his son let this guy stay there?  They didn't know if he was supposed to be there or not. That's why the police were called out. 



JoeB131 said:


> So what if he was? Funny thing, if someone broke into my house, there would be no cash, jewelry or guns lying around to steal. I would keep those things in a safe or somewhere safe.



Most people don't have safes in their home. They don't live in a crime infested shithole like you do.


----------



## j-mac

pknopp said:


> A violation  of our rights aren't based upon how long they are violated......but you know that.


And how exactly were the young man’s rights violated?


----------



## pknopp

j-mac said:


> And how exactly were the young man’s rights violated?



 Sheesh. Read the thread and the article.


----------



## j-mac

otto105 said:


> A neighbor called on a man sitting on the patio doing nothing.
> 
> Cops show up without a warrant and enter house with guns drawn based on information that a man was sitting on the patio doing nothing.
> 
> The only thing clear here ray, is your run to racism which is inline with the karen that called. If he was white, no phone call.


And you know that how?


----------



## j-mac

pknopp said:


> Sheesh. Read the thread and the article.


I did, and watched the entire video…I saw nothing wrong.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It's already happening.
> 
> Last summer I had a one on one with our police chief. It was a city zoom meeting but I was the only one that showed up since it was rescheduled last minute.
> 
> When I asked the chief if there was a problem with money getting more officers, he told me they have money for five more, but they can't get anybody to apply. He said when he applied to be an officer in our city back in 1990, he was up against 950 other applicants for one opening. Today he said, when we advertise for a new officer, we're lucky to get 20 applicants. out of them, a good percentage won't be able to pass the exam, out of the ones that do, some of them fail the academy, and even if they pass the academy, many times they can't catch on to the job and we let them go.
> 
> It's not just our problem he added, this is a nationwide problem.



Or that your town is a slum and no one wants to work there.  

So here's another myth to bust.  










						Police Say Demoralized Officers Are Quitting In Droves. Labor Data Says No.
					

While other industries were devastated by the pandemic last year, police departments felt a much smaller impact.




					www.themarshallproject.org
				




According to federal data, those worries are unfounded. Last year, as the overall U.S. economy shed 6% of workers, local police departments lost just under 1% of employees after a decade of steady expansion, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s about 4,000 people out of nearly half a million employees in municipal police departments and sheriff’s offices nationwide. State and federal law enforcement departments actually saw a slight increase in the number of employees. 1

Law enforcement’s employment numbers tend not to fluctuate dramatically. Policing is a secure job, according to Peter Moskos, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, which explains the relatively small increase in retirements and resignations over 2020. Police jobs are often last on the chopping block when cities are considering budget cuts. Pensions and relatively high pay make it appealing to stay. Many of the officers who retired in 2020 were probably going to retire in a couple of years anyway, says Moskos, who suspects very few police would quit outright. Morale may be low, but, in Moskos’s view, that’s always been the case.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Nobody broke anything. Police officers are allowed to search houses or cars if they have reasonable suspicion.





Mac-7 said:


> And had reasonable suspicion due to a 911 call from a neighbor



Wow... So imagine this, your dog shits on my lawn, and I call in a "suspicious character" at your house.  That makes it okay for the cops to go busting into your house and mistreat you?  

Does this sound "reasonable" to you.  That you can be rousted in your own home because a total stranger doesn't think you should be there?


----------



## Golfing Gator

Ray From Cleveland said:


> it's reasonable suspicion to enter a house where a potential crime is taking place.



There was no potential crime is taking place, there was no reason to think there was a crime is taking place.  

Why is it always the same people that whine all day long about authoritarianism are also the ones that think police are demigods and can do whatever they please?


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> No there isn't, but the neighbor didn't call police because somebody was on the back deck, they called police because there was a stranger on the property that was not the owner.



Why was that any of her business?  She obviously wasn't a good enough friend of the owner to know what was going on in her house.  



j-mac said:


> 1. I don't know why the occupants would file suit. Seems like a misunderstanding, and a cordial encounter...
> 
> 2. What part of this young mans rights were violated? He was detained for less than 2 minutes....



Yeah, putting someone in cuffs because they are black, that sounds really "Cordial".


----------



## Golfing Gator

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The courts have already ruled (and I posted a link) that reasonable suspicion gives an officer the right to search a vehicle or home. No rights were violated.



One more time for the slow at hand....they had no* reasonable suspicion *


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So HTF are the police supposed to know the owner died and his son let this guy stay there? They didn't know if he was supposed to be there or not. That's why the police were called out.



They could have asked nicely... you know, instead of just assuming the negro was breaking in.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Most people don't have safes in their home. They don't live in a crime infested shithole like you do.



I'm not the one who listens to the police scanners all night, puts cameras to keep an eye on the HUD neighbors, and strokes his gun all night.  

That would be you.


----------



## Mac-7

JoeB131 said:


> Wow... So imagine this, your dog shits on my lawn, and I call in a "suspicious character" at your house.  That makes it okay for the cops to go busting into your house and mistreat you?
> 
> Does this sound "reasonable" to you.  That you can be rousted in your own home because a total stranger doesn't think you should be there?


You are making up stuff you know nothing about

because you were not at the house that night


----------



## Canon Shooter

pknopp said:


> It says that the court is not allowing the officer qualified immunity so we will see what washes out in the end.



That was a horrible decision. I would hope the cop is able to appeal that...


----------



## JoeB131

Mac-7 said:


> You are making up stuff you know nothing about
> 
> because you were not at the house that night



Right. The person who WAS at that house complained and a judge agreed with him.  So there's that.


----------



## Mac-7

JoeB131 said:


> Right. The person who WAS at that house complained and a judge agreed with him.  So there's that.


The judge is an obama flunky

based on what we do know the judge is wrong


----------



## JoeB131

Mac-7 said:


> The judge is an obama flunky
> 
> based on what we do know the judge is wrong



Except as you say, you weren't there.   

The person who was there complained and a judge agreed with him that a cop throwing the cuffs on him for being at home was a bit much.


----------



## j-mac

JoeB131 said:


> Yeah, putting someone in cuffs because they are black, that sounds really "Cordial".
> 
> View attachment 603938



Bull freakin shit! Look, Real simple here...The call came in to check on the house, that there is a suspicious person in the house...The call is dispatched...An officer goes to the house, and a backup partner is also dispatched...Standard....Officer knocks on the door, and announces himself, checks to see if the door is locked, it's open....Officer waits.....Backup arrives in his car, so officer enters as backup is walking up.....Officer announces again, and asks person to come out of the back bedroom with hands visible....At that time the occupant is detained for a grand total of 42 seconds....and then removed from handcuffs....and the visit from there is just getting the story of the situation of why they are there in a home where the owner of the home is deceased....Once they get that they inform the occupant that the neighbor would be filled in so this doesn't happen again, apologize for the inconvenience and leave....

Now, this judge ruled wrongly. NOTHING was violated here...What the officers did was standard procedure. And IMHO, exemplary in the manner in which they handled the situation....Color has absolutely NOTHING to do with this...As far as the officers conduct...And, I think this will lose in front of a jury...

As far as the Judge in this that saw a violation, I'd like to see his opinion on the decision, and if that opinion is based on this political climate today, then he needs to be removed from the bench...It's as simple as that.


----------



## j-mac

JoeB131 said:


> Except as you say, you weren't there.
> 
> The person who was there complained and a judge agreed with him that a cop throwing the cuffs on him for being at home was a bit much.



That is procedure...For the detained, as well as officer safety.


----------



## Mac-7

JoeB131 said:


> Except as you say, you weren't there.
> 
> The person who was there complained and a judge agreed with him that a cop throwing the cuffs on him for being at home was a bit much.


his decision will hopefully be overturned

then he should be stripped of his black robe and removed from the bench


----------



## JoeB131

j-mac said:


> Bull freakin shit! Look, Real simple here...The call came in to check on the house, that there is a suspicious person in the house...The call is dispatched...An officer goes to the house, and a backup partner is also dispatched...Standard....Officer knocks on the door, and announces himself, checks to see if the door is locked, it's open....Officer waits.....Backup arrives in his car, so officer enters as backup is walking up.....Officer announces again, and asks person to come out of the back bedroom with hands visible....At that time the occupant is detained for a grand total of 42 seconds....and then removed from handcuffs....and the visit from there is just getting the story of the situation of why they are there in a home where the owner of the home is deceased....Once they get that they inform the occupant that the neighbor would be filled in so this doesn't happen again, apologize for the inconvenience and leave....



Again, the problem was they treated him like a perp until they found out he wasn't--- because he was black.  



j-mac said:


> Now, this judge ruled wrongly. NOTHING was violated here...What the officers did was standard procedure. And IMHO, exemplary in the manner in which they handled the situation....Color has absolutely NOTHING to do with this...As far as the officers conduct...And, I think this will lose in front of a jury...



Maybe... or maybe they will get a jury of black folks who have all had encounters with the police where the cops treat them like perps, and will send a clear message that they are sick of that shit.  



j-mac said:


> As far as the Judge in this that saw a violation, I'd like to see his opinion on the decision, and if that opinion is based on this political climate today, then he needs to be removed from the bench...It's as simple as that.



If you got treated the way this man was treated, Anger Issues, you'd still be screaming about it. 



j-mac said:


> That is procedure...For the detained, as well as officer safety.



Really, I've had a bunch of encounters with the police, and they never slapped me in cuffs once.   I wonder why that is... Wait.  

OH YEAH, BECAUSE I'M WHITE 

I actually did have an analogous situation in 2016.  I had told my neighbor that I was going to be on a business trip for a week, but came back a couple days early.  I opened the window to air out the place while I went to the store to run an errand. 

My cat- being a cat - pushed out a loose screen and got out of the house, and my neighbor thought maybe someone might be in there. So she called our local squirrel cops.  

When I got back, the officer DID take the opportunity to walk through the house with me and check my ID, but what he didn't do was slap the cuffs on me for "safety".


----------



## JoeB131

Mac-7 said:


> his decision will hopefully be overturned
> 
> then he should be stripped of his black robe and removed from the bench



Yes, because the last thing we want is the cops to start treating black people with dignity.  Next they might start expecting stuff.


----------



## otto105

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I don't normally deal with the mentally retarded.  I don't have the training.  So the last time:
> 
> SOMEBODY WAS IN THE HOUSE THAT DIDN'T LIVE THERE!  THEY WERE NOT ONLY IN AND OUT OF THE HOUSE, THEY WERE OF A COMPLETELY GENERATION DIFFERENT THAN THE HOME OWNER.
> 
> If you have any more questions, please ask your aid to read this topic and explain it to you with crayons or however they relate to people like yourself.


I will refer you to the judges decision.

And will note that being black is suspicion enough for the police to violate an individuals rights is okay with ray.


----------



## otto105

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It wasn't his home, it was the home of his coaches mother.


He had permission to live there for 2-3 months, so it was his home for that time.


----------



## otto105

j-mac said:


> Bull freakin shit! Look, Real simple here...The call came in to check on the house, that there is a suspicious person in the house...The call is dispatched...An officer goes to the house, and a backup partner is also dispatched...Standard....Officer knocks on the door, and announces himself, checks to see if the door is locked, it's open....Officer waits.....Backup arrives in his car, so officer enters as backup is walking up.....Officer announces again, and asks person to come out of the back bedroom with hands visible....At that time the occupant is detained for a grand total of 42 seconds....and then removed from handcuffs....and the visit from there is just getting the story of the situation of why they are there in a home where the owner of the home is deceased....Once they get that they inform the occupant that the neighbor would be filled in so this doesn't happen again, apologize for the inconvenience and leave....
> 
> Now, this judge ruled wrongly. NOTHING was violated here...What the officers did was standard procedure. And IMHO, exemplary in the manner in which they handled the situation....Color has absolutely NOTHING to do with this...As far as the officers conduct...And, I think this will lose in front of a jury...
> 
> As far as the Judge in this that saw a violation, I'd like to see his opinion on the decision, and if that opinion is based on this political climate today, then he needs to be removed from the bench...It's as simple as that.


Your description of the events is completely wrong.

Judge rules for Black man arrested in his new Monona home

Excerpt:

"By the time an officer arrived, Furdge had moved to a bedroom. From the front door, the first officer could hear Furdge inside and said, "You want to come out here?" But Furdge, who appeared to be singing or talking on a phone, did not respond.

After a second officer showed up, they entered the home without knocking or announcing themselves, or checking with the owner. 

With guns drawn, they yelled, "Police — come out with your hands up." Furdge did. He was handcuffed and held briefly until more officers came, and learned from other neighbors that Furdge had permission to stay at the home. They apologized to Furdge.

The encounter was captured on an officer's body camera."



Why is your description so factually wrong?


----------



## White 6

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It wasn't his home, it was the home of his coaches mother.


And only on 2 month loan, at that.


----------



## Mac-7

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, because the last thing we want is the cops to start treating black people with dignity.  Next they might start expecting stuff.


We were not there

but it appears that the cops dealt with a dangerous situation without harm to themselves or others


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> First of all the guy was never arrested.  Police often cuff suspects for their own safety until they can conclude what's going on.  I've seen it repeatedly on the classic police show C*O*P*S.  I also seen police do the same in my neighborhood.  Perfectly legal as the officer explains he is not cuffing the person because they are under arrest.  Secondly, what did you want police to do?  Since you didn't read any of the past posts, I'll present a scenario I posted earlier:
> 
> You come home after being in the hospital for four days.  You find your home ransacked and all your valuables gone.  Like anybody else, you call the police.  Here is how the conversation would go:
> 
> This is Mr. Woodwork, and my house was robbed while I was in the hospital.
> _Sorry to hear that, we'll send somebody down, what is your address? _
> 111 Blaker street.
> _Oh yes, we were there the other day while your house was being robbed.  Your neighbor called it in._
> And you didn't do anything?
> _No we didn't, our officer knocked at the door, but nobody answered.  Apparently they were on the phone or had some music on._
> So what did your officer do?
> _Nothing, he just went back to his car and came back to the station. _
> Why didn't he go into my home to check things out???
> _We didn't know if he should be there or not, and we didn't want to violate his constitutional rights! _
> 
> Tell me you'd be okay with this if it actually happened.



The neighbor didn't say the house was being robbed.  The neighbor said there was a black buy sitting on the porch.

I don't care if the cops check it out.  They had no reason at all to handcuff the guy unless you can show me that they handcuff everyone they talk to when investigating any potential crime.  And, of course if they did,  hopefully even you would be up in arms.

If the cop thought he was under such a threat by going in the house to save copper pipes, he should not have gone in; the copper pipes are not worth his life.  Stay outside, get the megaphone.  Get backup.  I know there have been a lot of stories of ambushed cops these days and I don't want cops hurt.  If they're that scared, use more defensive tactics.

In this case, though, when the cops made the resident aware they were there he voluntarily came into the room empty handed.  A quick Terry patdown (unconstitutional on its own) would have proven he had no weapons.  So what evidence was there that there was a threat to the two cops?  One black guy who was cooperating and did nothing threatening except being black?


----------



## JoeB131

Mac-7 said:


> We were not there
> 
> but it appears that the cops dealt with a dangerous situation without harm to themselves or others



A guy in his own home is a "dangerous situation".  

I mean, yeah, we should be glad this cop didn't go all Amber Guyger on this guy and shoot him while he was on his couch eating ice cream.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

woodwork201 said:


> The neighbor didn't say the house was being robbed.  The neighbor said there was a black buy sitting on the porch.
> 
> I don't care if the cops check it out.  They had no reason at all to handcuff the guy unless you can show me that they handcuff everyone they talk to when investigating any potential crime.  And, of course if they did,  hopefully even you would be up in arms.
> 
> If the cop thought he was under such a threat by going in the house to save copper pipes, he should not have gone in; the copper pipes are not worth his life.  Stay outside, get the megaphone.  Get backup.  I know there have been a lot of stories of ambushed cops these days and I don't want cops hurt.  If they're that scared, use more defensive tactics.
> 
> In this case, though, when the cops made the resident aware they were there he voluntarily came into the room empty handed.  A quick Terry patdown (unconstitutional on its own) would have proven he had no weapons.  So what evidence was there that there was a threat to the two cops?  One black guy who was cooperating and did nothing threatening except being black?



It's standard police procedure.  If you don't like it, write to the various police academies.  That's what police do.  They called out the subject and he didn't respond.  So they entered the house armed to protect themselves.  No law against it.  They put him in handcuffs for their own safety so they didn't have to hold the gun on the guy.  Again, standard police procedure.  After they figured out what was going on, they took the cuffs off.  









						When Can Police Place You in Handcuffs? - FindLaw
					

Many people associate being handcuffed by police with being arrested and read Miranda rights. However, there are several different situations, including but not limited to being arrested, in which police may place you in handcuffs or other restraints without violating your civil rights. So when...




					www.findlaw.com


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

otto105 said:


> I will refer you to the judges decision.
> 
> And will note that being black is suspicion enough for the police to violate an individuals rights is okay with ray.



No rights were violated.  How many more links would you like?


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It's standard police procedure. If you don't like it, write to the various police academies. That's what police do. They called out the subject and he didn't respond. So they entered the house armed to protect themselves. No law against it. They put him in handcuffs for their own safety so they didn't have to hold the gun on the guy. Again, standard police procedure. After they figured out what was going on, they took the cuffs off.



Awesome. And now they and the cop can pay a huge fine for violating this man's civil rights.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Golfing Gator said:


> One more time for the slow at hand....they had no* reasonable suspicion *



Yes they did.  They were called out for strange man in a house in which he didn't live.  They called him out and got no response.  That's reasonable suspicion.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Awesome. And now they and the cop can pay a huge fine for violating this man's civil rights.



Keep dreaming.  It will be overturned the very first appeal court.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes they did. They were called out for strange man in a house in which he didn't live. They called him out and got no response. That's reasonable suspicion.



If you replace the word "Strange" with "Black:, you mean?


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Keep dreaming. It will be overturned the very first appeal court.



Not in this climate...  

We might even see the end of qualified immunity, be still my breaking heart.


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> it's reasonable suspicion to enter a house where a potential crime is taking place.



Right now, at your house and at this very minute, there is the potential that a crime is being committed.  Can the police come in your house, guns drawn, and cuff you?

Your statement doesn't even make sense.  It is not reasonable suspicion to enter a house.  Entering a house is a physical act and reasonable suspicion describes a thought process.  It is never reasonable suspicion to DO anything.

Did you even listen to the radio traffic and watch the body cam video?  The dispatcher told the first cop only that there was someone in the house and that the house was supposed to be empty - based solely on the word of a woman who sounded like she was shaking in her boots.  The cop opened the door without knocking or announcing himself and looked inside.  Then he did make a reasonable attempt to be heard when he announced that he was with the police but he was clearly not heard.  Music and singing in the back continued.  

The cop waited several minutes for multiple cops to arrive.  Finally, the first two entered the house with guns drawn and once fully in the house, a good 10 feet or more, the  called out loudly that they were the police and for the guy to come out with his hands up - which the guy did.  They said, right off, "You don't live here."  He explained the house belonged to his coach and the coach had given them permission to stay there.  The guy was barefoot, in sweat pants and an A-shirt.  Clearly not common attire for a burglary.  

They immediately cuffed him and then, within a minute of the cops making contact with Furdge, the third cop came in and said that another neighbor had told him the Furdge lived there.  Amazing what just a tiny bit of police work, taking just a minute or two, can reveal that could, in very many cases, save a life.

As soon as the third cop told them Furdge had permission to be there, they uncuffed him.  They clearly were not threatened when they allowed him to go back in the room to get his phone - remember cell phones look just like guns to a cop.

The cops were friendly and Furdge was friendly.  That doesn't mean they didn't violate his rights.  All they had to do is ask him to sit down.  Two cops, with guns drawn, standing feet away from a sitting suspect, certainly are not in danger.  And Furdge clearly knew from the start that his rights were violated.  His first words were, "I know; a black man."  He knew enough to be polite to two cops with guns drawn. 

And for whoever it was that said the music was probably rap, it wasn't - or didn't sound like rap to me; there was only a couple seconds that were audible.


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So you never read stories about criminals making themselves at home by getting something to eat out of the victims refrigerator or cooking on their stove?  You never read about stories of a drugged up or drunk person thinking they were sleeping on their own couch when it was that of a stranger they never met?
> 
> You said cops as in plural.  But the OP reads that it was one police officer that originally knocked at the door and yelled for the subject to come out.  Before he entered the home, he called for backup so there were two of them obviously for safety reasons.



He called for backup before he exited his vehicle.  Before he entered there were two cops at the door and one, the one who had already talked to another neighbor who said Furdge had permission to be there, was walking across the front of the house toward the two at the door, without his gun in his hand.  How do I know he had talked to the other neighbor?  Because he came in just seconds after the first two and told them so.


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Your comprehension skills suffer.  In the OP it reads the neighbor stated he was outside on the patio.  When the officer arrived he was inside the house.



Listen to the 911 call.  The busy-body neighbor clearly states that the "African American" was sitting on the front steps.


----------



## Golfing Gator

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes they did.  They were called out for strange man in a house in which he didn't live.  They called him out and got no response.  That's reasonable suspicion.



You have a much, much lower bar for what is reasonable suspicion than I do.


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Leftists are the most myopic people in our country.  They have no imagination to put the shoe on the other foot.  As I asked, if somebody robbed their home, found out the police responded to the complaint by the neighbor, and simply left because there was no response by the suspect, they'd be having a shit fit.  They would be suing the officers, suing the city, and complaining that our police are not doing their jobs.



Being a constitutional conservative, I accept that the cost of liberty is that sometimes bad people get away with being bad people.  As I was taught as a child, something that was universally accepted in my world - all my family and teachers and everyone I knew: better for a thousand guilty to go free than for a single innocent man be in prison.  Please don't point out that no one went to prison.  The principle is that liberty and rights trump law enforcement and safety every time.


----------



## woodwork201

White 6 said:


> No.  Might be, I just think the police investigated a report, controlled the situation for the safety of all involved and left, after the situation was clarified, not even keep the guy cuffed, while they waited for confirmation, nobody arrested, nobody struck or physically injured , shot, cussed or verbally abused.
> *I guess I have higher levels of tolerance than you*, coming from a different time here in the south.  I got taken into custody one time, transported across county lines, locked up for maybe two hours, while the out of county sheriff and deputies questioned each of us (73 of us) about drugs, drinking, etc.  Upon release without charges (as I was sober, not under the influence of drugs or alcohol)  I found the Sheriff's department had broken into my van, found my spare key, and used it without my permission to haul a van load of young adults and juveniles (while I was locked in the back of a squad car, refusing to unlock the the van for an illegal search without a warrant) across county lines (out of their jurisdiction) to the jail.  In doing so, they broke a window out of the track, allowing them to gain entry, finding my spare key,they loaded prisoners,  damaging the mount on my new Craig Quadraphonic 8-track player and knocked one of the 1 ft speakers off it's mounts on one of the rear doors.  When I went back into the jail to ask who was going pay for or fix the damages on the van (3 weeks off the new car lot), I was told by the sheriff of that county to get the hell out of there, right then or would be thrown back in jail until Monday morning and not to come back to his county.  Those are fairly significant violation of my rights.  My dad called a friend of the family, Judge Pelham McMurray in Paducah, Ky. where we had moved from.  I went back and politely ask for my van to be fixed, again was told I was getting ready to go back in the jail, whereupon I gave him the direct line phone number to the judge, recommending he call before anything rash was done.  The judge explained that Federal warrants for his arrest would be forthcoming within 24 hours for a variety of federal offenses if the sheriff re-evaluate his  idea of law enforcement in this matter, and recommended the sheriff reconsider the request for damages.  My new van and equipment were totally repaired, but I was advised not to come back to that town or county as they would be on the lookout for the only bright red, new Chevy van with chrome wheel and wide tires and speeding tickets at the very least would result.
> *I did not sue* and did not go back for a couple of years. I had been returned to (in my opinion) the status quo anti, prior to the misadventure, counting myself lucky, knowing if they had arrived 45 minutes later, I would have indeed been, not only drunker than hell, but stoned out of my gourd. The year was 1974, the town Camden, TN, the party was Bruceton Tennessee high school graduation party in Carroll County at the sand pits between Bruceton and Camden, the sheriff was Jerry Phiefer, who about two years later (coincidentally) would be indicted on several of a variety of charges, such as mail fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to bootlegging in that dry county, extortion, etc, etc, etc. We've had some very colorful sheriffs in West Tennessee.
> I told you that, to prove I am a no harm no foul kind of guy, when it comes to law enforcement.



It's very unfortunate for all the rest who that Sheriff abused after you that you didn't take a stand and sue.  It's sad for you that you accepted such a violation of your rights though it is lucky for you to have the contacts to get your van fixed.  Unfortunately, most people don't have the contacts to protect them from such abuse and as long as you allow yourself to be abused you enable the abuser to abuse the next person.  Every case of civil rights violation should result in civil and/or criminal penalties and then the cops, and government as a whole, will quit violating civil rights.

Often times the reason cops violate rights is for their own safety when there are other safety protocols they can use that don't require the risk of violent confrontation or at least increase the distance and safety of that confrontation.

I'd bet money that the two cops that went into that house will investigate with neighbors or the home owner before they enter a home because some karen neighbor calls about a suspicious African-American sitting on the steps.  

Oh, I forgot to mention, she waved at him when she got home and he waved back; no fear, no panic.  A casual wave back and forth.  And then she went into the house and called the cops.


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Read the OP.  The owner recently passed away.



Not true.  That was the previous owner.  There's a new owner.  Do houses where people pass away become abandoned?


----------



## cnm

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It wasn't his home, it was the home of his coaches mother.


He resided there. It was his home.


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So HTF are the police supposed to know the owner died and his son let this guy stay there?  They didn't know if he was supposed to be there or not. That's why the police were called out.
> 
> 
> 
> Most people don't have safes in their home. They don't live in a crime infested shithole like you do.



Do you live in a crime infested shithole?  Do you have a safe?  If yes to both then you probably meant, "Most people don't have safes in their home.  They don't live in a crime infested shithole like I do."  Otherwise, that's a bullshit post.


----------



## cnm

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So HTF are the police supposed to know the owner died and his son let this guy stay there?


By asking politely. Would you be happy to be handcuffed (for your and everyone else's safety) whenever spoken to by the police?


----------



## woodwork201

j-mac said:


> That is procedure...For the detained, as well as officer safety.



So, in every "terry stop" or other investigation where the cop feels like he has reasonable suspicion, those he suspects are held in handcuffs until the matter is cleared?  If that's the procedure it should be in every case, not just the case of black men.

And, of course, if it were every case, I think that even you and Ray would be up in arms.


----------



## woodwork201

JoeB131 said:


> Again, the problem was they treated him like a perp until they found out he wasn't--- because he was black.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe... or maybe they will get a jury of black folks who have all had encounters with the police where the cops treat them like perps, and will send a clear message that they are sick of that shit.
> 
> 
> 
> If you got treated the way this man was treated, Anger Issues, you'd still be screaming about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Really, I've had a bunch of encounters with the police, and they never slapped me in cuffs once.   I wonder why that is... Wait.
> 
> OH YEAH, BECAUSE I'M WHITE
> 
> I actually did have an analogous situation in 2016.  I had told my neighbor that I was going to be on a business trip for a week, but came back a couple days early.  I opened the window to air out the place while I went to the store to run an errand.
> 
> My cat- being a cat - pushed out a loose screen and got out of the house, and my neighbor thought maybe someone might be in there. So she called our local squirrel cops.
> 
> When I got back, the officer DID take the opportunity to walk through the house with me and check my ID, but what he didn't do was slap the cuffs on me for "safety".



Race aside, I can link stories probably all day long of people, white and  black, arrested for trespassing on their own property.  It has to stop; basic police work has gone out the window in the furor to arrest and the power hungry, authoritarian, behaviors of modern police.


----------



## woodwork201

White 6 said:


> And only on 2 month loan, at that.



It was still his home.  Are you suggesting that renters have no right or expectation that the police don't enter without cause?


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It's standard police procedure.  If you don't like it, write to the various police academies.  That's what police do.  They called out the subject and he didn't respond.  So they entered the house armed to protect themselves.  No law against it.  They put him in handcuffs for their own safety so they didn't have to hold the gun on the guy.  Again, standard police procedure.  After they figured out what was going on, they took the cuffs off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Can Police Place You in Handcuffs? - FindLaw
> 
> 
> Many people associate being handcuffed by police with being arrested and read Miranda rights. However, there are several different situations, including but not limited to being arrested, in which police may place you in handcuffs or other restraints without violating your civil rights. So when...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.findlaw.com



Once again, if standard police practice was to cuff every suspicious character in every Terry stop across the nation, or even across that town's PD, then the cop would get off scott-free for following process and the department would have the fault for a greater wrong in cuffing everyone they talk to about any suspicious activity.  Hopefully, if that were truly the standard practice as you suggest, even you would be up in arms.


----------



## cnm

White 6 said:


> And only on 2 month loan, at that.


It would appear if one doesn't have title to a property it can't be one's home. Interesting.


----------



## cnm

Ray From Cleveland said:


> SOMEBODY WAS IN THE HOUSE THAT DIDN'T LIVE THERE!


Of course the thing is he did live there.


----------



## cnm

Ray From Cleveland said:


> They put him in handcuffs for their own safety


Oh. I thought it was for everyone's safety.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

cnm said:


> Of course the thing is he did live there.



And the police knew that how?


----------



## Mac-7

JoeB131 said:


> A guy in his own home is a "dangerous situation".
> 
> I mean, yeah, we should be glad this cop didn't go all Amber Guyger on this guy and shoot him while he was on his couch eating ice cream.


All 911 calls after dark are dangerous

the recent ambush of 4 cops is witness to that

the man was handcuffed for minutes and then released

Thats good police work


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

White 6 said:


> What harm was that, again?  I must have missed it.


The harm manifests when the state violates our Constitutional rights.

The harm manifests when the state subjects citizens to an unlawful, unwarranted, unreasonable searches.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

otto105 said:


> A neighbor called on an African-American man doing nothing but sitting on the porch and that is reasonable suspicion?


To the racist right it clearly is.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

woodwork201 said:


> Once again, if standard police practice was to cuff every suspicious character in every Terry stop across the nation, or even across that town's PD, then the cop would get off scott-free for following process and the department would have the fault for a greater wrong in cuffing everyone they talk to about any suspicious activity.  Hopefully, if that were truly the standard practice as you suggest, even you would be up in arms.



Why would I be?  I'm the type of person that can put myself in anybody's shoes.  I look at things from all angles, not just the ones of my preference.  

A few times when I was delivering medical equipment, I got stopped by the cops.  Reason?  I was white.  I was in uniform, in a marked van with the company name on it, and they still stopped me.  No problem.  They would ask me various questions, ask for ID which I happily showed them, and were very polite for my cooperation.  One time they even had dispatch call my company since this was back in the days of no cell phones. 

Hey, I get it.  No white person would be caught dead in the Cleveland projects unless they were buying or selling drugs or had a death wish.  But I always treated them with respect because I understood their position.  Whitie just didn't go to places like that.  After his investigation, one officer told me "you white ass isn't safe here brother, I'm going to walk you to the apartment!"  He walked me there, and he waited until I left and escorted me back to my van.  Police are generally grateful when you don't give them a hard time and understand their situation.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> We'll see more of this as the anti-cop movement drives down the quality of the average recruit.


There is no ‘anti-cop’ movement.

To denounce and oppose violations of citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights is not to be ‘anti-cop.’


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

woodwork201 said:


> Race aside, I can link stories probably all day long of people, white and  black, arrested for trespassing on their own property.  It has to stop; basic police work has gone out the window in the furor to arrest and the power hungry, authoritarian, behaviors of modern police.



If you're on your own property, you can't be arrested for it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It's already happening.
> 
> Last summer I had a one on one with our police chief.  It was a city zoom meeting but I was the only one that showed up since it was rescheduled last minute.
> 
> When I asked the chief if there was a problem with money getting more officers, he told me they have money for five more, but they can't get anybody to apply.  He said when he applied to be an officer in our city back in 1990, he was up against 950 other applicants for one opening.  Today he said, when we advertise for a new officer, we're lucky to get 20 applicants.  out of them, a good percentage won't be able to pass the exam, out of the ones that do, some of them fail the academy, and even if they pass the academy, many times they can't catch on to the job and we let them go.
> 
> It's not just our problem he added, this is a nationwide problem.


This is a lie.

As already correctly noted: the notion that ‘demoralized officers’ are quitting or that police departments are unable to hire recruits is false.


----------



## Quasar44

pknopp
They Have lowered the bar so much on cop requirements that it’s attracting only folks who want the power


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

cnm said:


> By asking politely. Would you be happy to be handcuffed (for your and everyone else's safety) whenever spoken to by the police?



It wouldn't bother me.  I have respect for authority.  The officer would have asked politely if the subject came out of the house when the officer was outside.


----------



## White 6

woodwork201 said:


> It's very unfortunate for all the rest who that Sheriff abused after you that you didn't take a stand and sue.  It's sad for you that you accepted such a violation of your rights though it is lucky for you to have the contacts to get your van fixed.  Unfortunately, most people don't have the contacts to protect them from such abuse and as long as you allow yourself to be abused you enable the abuser to abuse the next person.  Every case of civil rights violation should result in civil and/or criminal penalties and then the cops, and government as a whole, will quit violating civil rights.
> 
> Often times the reason cops violate rights is for their own safety when there are other safety protocols they can use that don't require the risk of violent confrontation or at least increase the distance and safety of that confrontation.
> 
> I'd bet money that the two cops that went into that house will investigate with neighbors or the home owner before they enter a home because some karen neighbor calls about a suspicious African-American sitting on the steps.
> 
> Oh, I forgot to mention, she waved at him when she got home and he waved back; no fear, no panic.  A casual wave back and forth.  And then she went into the house and called the cops.


Not sad. Are you nuts?  It was great learning experience, I navigated at the age of 19!  I wasn't looking for a pay day.  I was looking to be returned to the status quo anti.  I made it happen, by self control, keeping my head, and working the problem at each step and keeping the steps simple, manageable at the lowest level possible and least impact.  The least force applied to accomplish goals is usually the best.  I had a good job.  I did not need Benton County's money, as I was making it very well for 19 on my own.  Just going to the jail during the event was a learning experience.  Saw people I hadn't seen in months.  Walking into the big general lockup was kinda like old home week for the young rural hipster set, kids of farmers, mayors, principles, preachers, multi-racial (which was unusual back then) like another phase of the party the cops crashed out in the middle of nowhere, miles from the nearest town or house.  The people that wanted to argue and raise hell had a worse time of and would be kicked out to the back of the line to be dealt with later, to be dealt with closer scrutiny after pissing off a deputy, trying to create order in the, mass arrest mayhem his boss had created in that small town county jail, in a decidedly iffy operation.  Some, they kept.  The squeakiest wheels got the grease.  My goal was never to make Benton County a better place to live for Benton Countians.  I didn't owe them taking on that hassle for fun and profit.  I just wanted to extract back unto me, everything I came to that party with.  I even managed to keep my girlfriend out the jail while in line at the jail house door with a quick uptake on their entry process up ahead, a smooth move and quick lie.  She was home before midnight.  She thought it pretty slick, too.  We've been married 47 years, last month.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

woodwork201 said:


> Do you live in a crime infested shithole?  Do you have a safe?  If yes to both then you probably meant, "Most people don't have safes in their home.  They don't live in a crime infested shithole like I do."  Otherwise, that's a bullshit post.



I don't need a safe.  I have guns for self-defense.


----------



## White 6

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The harm manifests when the state violates our Constitutional rights.
> 
> The harm manifests when the state subjects citizens to an unlawful, unwarranted, unreasonable searches.


Oh, I'm crushed.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

woodwork201 said:


> Not true.  That was the previous owner.  There's a new owner.  Do houses where people pass away become abandoned?



That's not what the OP said.  The woman who owned the house recently passed away.  The coach (her son) allowed this guy to stay there for whatever reason.


----------



## pknopp

Quasar44 said:


> pknopp
> They Have lowered the bar so much on cop requirements that it’s attracting only folks who want the power



 That has been the reasons far too many people have applied in the first place. What we are seeing is not something new, it's just that it's only recently been recorded.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

woodwork201 said:


> Listen to the 911 call.  The busy-body neighbor clearly states that the "African American" was sitting on the front steps.



No, it said he was sitting on the patio.  Apparently she had a view of the back of the home.  I don't have the 911 call available but it probably wouldn't tell me very much.  Police (at least here) stress for citizens to be busy bodies.  They can't fight crime themselves.  They instruct people to report even the most innocuous things if they think something may be wrong; let them handle it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

woodwork201 said:


> He called for backup before he exited his vehicle.  Before he entered there were two cops at the door and one, the one who had already talked to another neighbor who said Furdge had permission to be there, was walking across the front of the house toward the two at the door, without his gun in his hand.  How do I know he had talked to the other neighbor?  Because he came in just seconds after the first two and told them so.



I didn't read any of that in the OP.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

woodwork201 said:


> Right now, at your house and at this very minute, there is the potential that a crime is being committed.  Can the police come in your house, guns drawn, and cuff you?
> 
> Your statement doesn't even make sense.  It is not reasonable suspicion to enter a house.  Entering a house is a physical act and reasonable suspicion describes a thought process.  It is never reasonable suspicion to DO anything.
> 
> Did you even listen to the radio traffic and watch the body cam video?  The dispatcher told the first cop only that there was someone in the house and that the house was supposed to be empty - based solely on the word of a woman who sounded like she was shaking in her boots.  The cop opened the door without knocking or announcing himself and looked inside.  Then he did make a reasonable attempt to be heard when he announced that he was with the police but he was clearly not heard.  Music and singing in the back continued.
> 
> The cop waited several minutes for multiple cops to arrive.  Finally, the first two entered the house with guns drawn and once fully in the house, a good 10 feet or more, the  called out loudly that they were the police and for the guy to come out with his hands up - which the guy did.  They said, right off, "You don't live here."  He explained the house belonged to his coach and the coach had given them permission to stay there.  The guy was barefoot, in sweat pants and an A-shirt.  Clearly not common attire for a burglary.
> 
> They immediately cuffed him and then, within a minute of the cops making contact with Furdge, the third cop came in and said that another neighbor had told him the Furdge lived there.  Amazing what just a tiny bit of police work, taking just a minute or two, can reveal that could, in very many cases, save a life.
> 
> As soon as the third cop told them Furdge had permission to be there, they uncuffed him.  They clearly were not threatened when they allowed him to go back in the room to get his phone - remember cell phones look just like guns to a cop.
> 
> The cops were friendly and Furdge was friendly.  That doesn't mean they didn't violate his rights.  All they had to do is ask him to sit down.  Two cops, with guns drawn, standing feet away from a sitting suspect, certainly are not in danger.  And Furdge clearly knew from the start that his rights were violated.  His first words were, "I know; a black man."  He knew enough to be polite to two cops with guns drawn.
> 
> And for whoever it was that said the music was probably rap, it wasn't - or didn't sound like rap to me; there was only a couple seconds that were audible.



The OP didn't say anything like that.  They sent one officer out to check out the complaint.  Before he entered the house he called for assistance.  That's what I read.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Not in this climate...
> 
> We might even see the end of qualified immunity, be still my breaking heart.



That would be great because that would mean no more police.  Sissies like you are fucked because you never shot a gun in your life yet alone own one.  People like me can take care of ourselves because we are well armed.  So go ahead, tell Lightweight that you want an end to qualified immunity in Shitcago.  I'd love to see that.  And if I don't see you after that, I'll just assume what happened to ya.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> If you replace the word "Strange" with "Black:, you mean?



How did anybody know he was black until they seen him face to face?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Why was that any of her business? She obviously wasn't a good enough friend of the owner to know what was going on in her house.



No she didn't because the owner recently passed away.  She was being a good neighbor by calling the police.  That's what I'd want somebody doing for me if I was gone and they seen a stranger in or around my apartment.  

Crime is everybody's business.  When you and your neighbors feel it's no longer your business, criminals celebrate.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Or that your town is a slum and no one wants to work there.
> 
> So here's another myth to bust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police Say Demoralized Officers Are Quitting In Droves. Labor Data Says No.
> 
> 
> While other industries were devastated by the pandemic last year, police departments felt a much smaller impact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.themarshallproject.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to federal data, those worries are unfounded. Last year, as the overall U.S. economy shed 6% of workers, local police departments lost just under 1% of employees after a decade of steady expansion, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s about 4,000 people out of nearly half a million employees in municipal police departments and sheriff’s offices nationwide. State and federal law enforcement departments actually saw a slight increase in the number of employees. 1
> 
> Law enforcement’s employment numbers tend not to fluctuate dramatically. Policing is a secure job, according to Peter Moskos, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, which explains the relatively small increase in retirements and resignations over 2020. Police jobs are often last on the chopping block when cities are considering budget cuts. Pensions and relatively high pay make it appealing to stay. Many of the officers who retired in 2020 were probably going to retire in a couple of years anyway, says Moskos, who suspects very few police would quit outright. Morale may be low, but, in Moskos’s view, that’s always been the case.



Oh, a one year old article.  Gee, thanks.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Golfing Gator said:


> There was no potential crime is taking place, there was no reason to think there was a crime is taking place.
> 
> Why is it always the same people that whine all day long about authoritarianism are also the ones that think police are demigods and can do whatever they please?



A stranger person in a vacant home is reason to have police at least check the situation out.  Nothing wrong with that.  Again, our police force encourages it.


----------



## pknopp

Ray From Cleveland said:


> A stranger person in a vacant home is reason to have police at least check the situation out.  Nothing wrong with that.  Again, our police force encourages it.



 Knock, then knock again, then ask the other neighbors.


----------



## otto105

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie.
> 
> As already correctly noted: the notion that ‘demoralized officers’ are quitting or that police departments are unable to hire recruits is false.


It's a total lie.


----------



## otto105

Ray From Cleveland said:


> A stranger person in a vacant home is reason to have police at least check the situation out.  Nothing wrong with that.  Again, our police force encourages it.


How do you know it was vacant?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Quasar44 said:


> pknopp
> They Have lowered the bar so much on cop requirements that it’s attracting only folks who want the power



It's what they have to do with this war on police the left launched.  Our police department has been looking for 5 additional cops since last summer.  Can't find any.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

otto105 said:


> How do you know it was vacant?



It's what another poster posted.  It was likely vacant since the owner recently passed away.  That was in the OP.


----------



## Quasar44

Ray From Cleveland 

have you ever considered leaving Cleveland


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

pknopp said:


> Knock, then knock again, then ask the other neighbors.



That's not police procedure.  Police procedure is to investigate a complaint and that's what these officer did to a tee.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Quasar44 said:


> Ray From Cleveland
> 
> have you ever considered leaving Cleveland



Thought about it quite a bit, but this is where my family and friends are.  Going someplace not knowing anybody would make me lonely.  Besides, I have a side business here, and I enjoy what I do.


----------



## otto105

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It's what another poster posted.  It was likely vacant since the owner recently passed away.  That was in the OP.


No, you invented it to make a point.


----------



## Quasar44

Ray From Cleveland 

i remember Daniel Greene


----------



## otto105

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It's what they have to do with this war on police the left launched.  Our police department has been looking for 5 additional cops since last summer.  Can't find any.


Getting police to do their jobs is now too hard on them?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie.
> 
> As already correctly noted: the notion that ‘demoralized officers’ are quitting or that police departments are unable to hire recruits is false.



Right.  Our Chief is making it all up.  One of my closest friends I knew since I was 9 years old is making it up as well.  His police officer son told him a different story.  Only you know the truth, right?  









						Cleveland police facing difficulties in recruiting new officers
					

“The ones that are out there are doing a knock up job, it’s just we need more of them at this point,” says Cleveland City Councilman, Brian Kazy.




					www.wkyc.com
				












						Police departments in Northeast Ohio are desperate to fill open officer positions
					

Retirements and the current political climate are being cited as reasons for officer shortages.




					www.wkyc.com
				












						Law enforcement struggles to recruit since killing of Floyd
					

Law enforcement agencies across the country experienced a wave of retirements and departures and are struggling to recruit the next generation of police officers in the year since George Floyd was killed by a cop .




					apnews.com
				




Damn lying media.  I should have known not to rely on them and ask drive-by Clayton for the truth.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The harm manifests when the state violates our Constitutional rights.
> 
> The harm manifests when the state subjects citizens to an unlawful, unwarranted, unreasonable searches.



Except for the fact there were no violations of rights here.  Yes, this commie judge ruled it that way, but it will be overturned by a real American judge.


----------



## otto105

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Except for the fact there were no violations of rights here.  Yes, this commie judge ruled it that way, but it will be overturned by a real American judge.


The judge cites a clear violation of the Constitution and that makes him.....a commie? 

So, citing the Constitution now is communist?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

otto105 said:


> Getting police to do their jobs is now too hard on them?



Not hard, but who needs this bullshit?  Police do their jobs and are castigated for it.  I wouldn't want the job either if I were a young man today.  Not long ago the police only had to worry about the bad guy.  Today he has to worry about the good guys and the bad guys.  Not worth it for 60K a year, especially when you have to work nights, holidays and weekends.  You can make out better driving a truck which there are tens of thousands of openings for.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

otto105 said:


> The judge cites a clear violation of the Constitution and that makes him.....a commie?
> 
> So, citing the Constitution now is communist?



No, it's because he's an Obama appointee and that makes him a commie.  It's clear there were no rights violated, but he's likely just another anti-cop leftist just like you are.


----------



## pknopp

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Not hard, but who needs this bullshit?  Police do their jobs and are castigated for it.  I wouldn't want the job either if I were a young man today.



 Nor would I want you to have it.


----------



## cnm

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Why would I be?  I'm the type of person that can put myself in anybody's shoes.  I look at things from all angles, not just the ones of my preference.
> 
> A few times when I was delivering medical equipment, I got stopped by the cops.  Reason?  I was white.  I was in uniform, in a marked van with the company name on it, and they still stopped me.  No problem.  They would ask me various questions, ask for ID which I happily showed them, and were very polite for my cooperation.  One time they even had dispatch call my company since this was back in the days of no cell phones.
> 
> Hey, I get it.  No white person would be caught dead in the Cleveland projects unless they were buying or selling drugs or had a death wish.  But I always treated them with respect because I understood their position.  Whitie just didn't go to places like that.  After his investigation, one officer told me "you white ass isn't safe here brother, I'm going to walk you to the apartment!"  He walked me there, and he waited until I left and escorted me back to my van.  Police are generally grateful when you don't give them a hard time and understand their situation.


Lol. Land of the free!

Free to be stopped at random for a bit of 'Papiere Bitte!'


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> There is no ‘anti-cop’ movement.


You're lying and your middle name is Doo-doo.


----------



## Golfing Gator

Ray From Cleveland said:


> A stranger person in a vacant home is reason to have police at least check the situation out.  Nothing wrong with that.  Again, our police force encourages it.



Checking out and handcuffing someone are two very different things


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

cnm said:


> Lol. Land of the free!
> 
> Free to be stopped at random for a bit of 'Papiere Bitte!'


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Golfing Gator said:


> Checking out and handcuffing someone are two very different things



Yes but they detain the subject until they check things out.  It doesn't take long to pull out a gun out of your back holster.  Trust me, I carry one when I go out after dark.


----------



## ClaireH

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I wouldn't call a neighbor that lives there calling in a potential house robbery zero evidence.  Apparently the neighbor did know who lived there and these guys weren't it.


Like a lot of people do, when you have a good neighbor and you’re going away for a while, you’ll ask them to keep an eye out and they also ask the same. My thought exactly that unless this neighbor had some type of grievance against his neighbor, which doesn’t sound to be the case, he was legitimately concerned and called it in like any good neighbor would.


----------



## Golfing Gator

ClaireH said:


> Like a lot of people do, when you have a good neighbor and you’re going away for a while, you’ll ask them to keep an eye out and they also ask the same.



This neighbor was not asked to do that, they choose to all on their own


----------



## ClaireH

Golfing Gator said:


> This neighbor was not asked to do that, they choose to all on their own


My comment is relevant to the discussion. Dispatchers are used to getting calls like this from concerned neighbors and the police units notified. 

Thankfully, we all heard the female voice who called in had an undeniable Hispanic inflection, so we don’t have the “always a white supremacist!” crowd jumping in here derailing the specifics.


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> If you're on your own property, you can't be arrested for it.







__





						Virginia Man Arrested for Trespassing on Own Property
					

RICHMOND (NNPA) - Can you imagine being arrested and jailed for trespassing on private property you own or control? That's...




					www.theskanner.com
				












						Texas grandmother arrested for trespassing on her own land to protest Keystone
					

TransCanada seized a 78-year-old woman's land for its tar-sands pipeline, and she got arrested for protesting. TransCanada blames "out-of-state activists."




					grist.org
				












						State Senator, Supporters Confront Cops After Man Arrested For ‘Trespassing’ At Own Bar, Cops Block Door | The Daily Wire
					






					www.dailywire.com
				




And, of course, the most famous recent case









						Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




I'm sure I can find more but I have proven for a lot of different scenarios, that, yes, you can be arrested for trespassing on your own property.


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes but they detain the subject until they check things out.  It doesn't take long to pull out a gun out of your back holster.  Trust me, I carry one when I go out after dark.


Terry... All they had to do is pat him down.

You really are suggesting that the police handcuff everyone that the ever have a suspicion, aren't you?  Every terry stop now gets the innocent-until-proven-otherwise suspect in cuffs.


----------



## woodwork201

pknopp said:


> Knock, then knock again, then ask the other neighbors.



The other neighbors were asked and the third cop had the answer and was walking to the door before the first two went in.  He may not have guessed that his partners would go in with guns out and handcuff the guy or, just maybe, he could have simply called on the radio and told everyone it was OK.


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It wouldn't bother me.  I have respect for authority.  The officer would have asked politely if the subject came out of the house when the officer was outside.



Well, there's the difference between you and me.  I have almost no respect for authority and absolutely none for abusive authority.  You're a citizen with individual liberty and rights - as is Furdge.  You are not the servant of the government and the police are not your masters or betters.  I'm sorry to hear that you think so little of your liberty; from your posts on the right to keep and bear arms, I had assumed that liberty, and not just guns, was important to you.

I appreciate the job the police do and respect their bravery.  I most definitely know that they should be allowed to go home safe every night.  I also believe that they're human beings and that, as human beings, they deserve to be treated courteously.  That I have to "sir" a cop to keep him from copping an attitude is absolutely shameful.  I suppose that I do it is even more shameful but I, too, want to go home at the end of a police interaction.

I can treat them as though I respect them but that doesn't mean I respect them.  How can I respect them before I know them unless I am simply a subservient sheep?  If I were in that house and they came to the door, there are behaviors that the police could have taken that would have left me respecting them at the end of the day because then I'd have experience with them but when they assert authority they don't have and put cuffs on me for no reason other than that they can, then I would most certainly not respect them at all.


----------



## San Souci

pknopp said:


> I have no idea how this officer thought he had to right to go into a persons house in the first place let alone with guns drawn.
> 
> Maybe they will start to learn what they can and can not do when we hold more of them personally responsible for violating people's rights.
> 
> Judge rules for Black man arrested in his new Monona home


He was probably selling Heroin.


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> That's not what the OP said.  The woman who owned the house recently passed away.  The coach (her son) allowed this guy to stay there for whatever reason.


You're the one that said differently.  You keep saying  that the house was supposed to be empty.  You keep saying they don't live there.  You said the owner died and the house was supposed to be empty.  But the previous owner died.  The new owner, the son, said Furdge could live there.

The house was not supposed to be empty.  The owner was not dead.  Furdge did live there; he is the person who lived there.


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I didn't read any of that in the OP.


So all of your rhetoric and response is without knowing the facts?  In the OP is the 911 call, the  radio dispatch traffic, and the body cam.


----------



## gtopa1

White 6 said:


> What fantasy world on the West Coast do you live in?


He's from New Zealand...as he may have said after your post. 

Greg


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Ray From Cleveland said:


> A stranger person in a vacant home is reason to have police at least check the situation out.  Nothing wrong with that.  Again, our police force encourages it.


‘Checking it out’ isn’t what happened.

What happened is an unlawful violation of the Fourth Amendment.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

pknopp said:


> Knock, then knock again, then ask the other neighbors.


Or just leave if there’s no response to knocking.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Except for the fact there were no violations of rights here.  Yes, this commie judge ruled it that way, but it will be overturned by a real American judge.


This is as idiotic as it is ridiculous.


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It's what another poster posted.  It was likely vacant since the owner recently passed away.  That was in the OP.



That's ludicrous.  It was not likely vacant and the OP didn't say it was.  The OP was quite clear that Furdge had permission to live in the house and that at least one neighbor knew it and that cop 3 knew it prior to cops 1 and 2 going into the house.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> You're lying and your middle name is Doo-doo.


There is no ‘anti-cop’ movement.

Holding LEOs accountable when they violate citizens’ rights is not ‘anti-cop.’

Holding LEOs accountable when they violate the law is not ‘anti-cop.’

Holding LEOs accountable when they kill innocent detainees while in custody is not ‘anti-cop.’

‘Anti-cop movement’ is another lie contrived by the right, a dishonest red herring conservatives use to deflect from the fact far too often law enforcement violates citizens’ rights and protected liberties.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

woodwork201 said:


> That's ludicrous.  It was not likely vacant and the OP didn't say it was.  The OP was quite clear that Furdge had permission to live in the house and that at least one neighbor knew it and that cop 3 knew it prior to cops 1 and 2 going into the house.



I don't know where you get this stuff because none of that is in the OP.  What do you mean it was not likely vacant?  The woman just died for crying out loud.  Who would be occupying it?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Or just leave if there’s no response to knocking.



Just leave?  What would happen if somebody was robbing the place and got away with it because the officer(s) didn't follow up when nobody responded to their calls?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘Checking it out’ isn’t what happened.
> 
> What happened is an unlawful violation of the Fourth Amendment.



Checking it out is exactly what happened.  Because nobody answered when the officer yelled, going into the dwelling was the only way TO check it out.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

woodwork201 said:


> You're the one that said differently.  You keep saying  that the house was supposed to be empty.  You keep saying they don't live there.  You said the owner died and the house was supposed to be empty.  But the previous owner died.  The new owner, the son, said Furdge could live there.
> 
> The house was not supposed to be empty.  The owner was not dead.  Furdge did live there; he is the person who lived there.



The police nor neighbor had none of that information.  That's why they called the police in the first place.  If the neighbor knew any of that, she would have never asked the police to see what was going on.


----------



## cnm

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Just leave?  What would happen if somebody was robbing the place and got away with it because the officer(s) didn't follow up when nobody responded to their calls?



I suppose constitutional rights would be respected.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

woodwork201 said:


> Terry... All they had to do is pat him down.
> 
> You really are suggesting that the police handcuff everyone that the ever have a suspicion, aren't you?  Every terry stop now gets the innocent-until-proven-otherwise suspect in cuffs.



Like I said, police follow standard police procedure.  That's the way they are trained.  If something went wrong while they were not following procedure, they could lose their job.  Yes, police do handcuff everybody until they know the situation presents no threat to them, again, that's how they are trained and it's perfectly legal.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

cnm said:


> I suppose constitutional rights would be respected.



You wouldn't be singing constitutional rights if a burglar ripped you off with police there not doing their job.  You'd be singing lawsuit of the city for not doing anything about it.


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> No, it said he was sitting on the patio.  Apparently she had a view of the back of the home.  I don't have the 911 call available but it probably wouldn't tell me very much.  Police (at least here) stress for citizens to be busy bodies.  They can't fight crime themselves.  They instruct people to report even the most innocuous things if they think something may be wrong; let them handle it.


You really are making it up.  The 911 call is there.  He was sitting on the front steps.  She and the dispatcher went over that twice.


----------



## cnm

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Like I said, police follow standard police procedure.  That's the way they are trained.  If something went wrong while they were not following procedure, they could lose their job.  Yes, police do handcuff everybody until they know the situation presents no threat to them, again, that's how they are trained and it's perfectly legal.


What a badge sniffer.


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I don't know where you get this stuff because none of that is in the OP.  What do you mean it was not likely vacant?  The woman just died for crying out loud.  Who would be occupying it?


Everything I have said is in the OP.   Have you still not listened to the 911 call, the radio traffic, and watched the body cam video?

I'm trying to be mostly polite here because, usually, it seems that we're in agreement with stuff but you're so wrong on this and keep making stuff up, refusing the look at the evidence, and you keep insisting on the same ridiculous statements like the house was vacant or should have been vacant.

The house was not likely vacant.  Who would be occupying it could have been the dead woman's son, trusted friends of the dead woman's son, or, for all the  nosy neighbor knows. the house could have been sold; there was no obligation to get her approval or to notify her in any of those cases.

No, the house was not supposed to be vacant.  It was not likely to be vacant.  It was occupied, legally, and to anyone who had any concern or actual knowledge, expectedly, by Furdge.


----------



## cnm

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You wouldn't be singing constitutional rights if a burglar ripped you off with police there not doing their job. You'd be singing lawsuit of the city for not doing anything about it.


That's probably because I don't have a constitution. Not that it matters as they don't seem to get respected where they exist.
I accept police must obey the laws and I expect them to do so.


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The police nor neighbor had none of that information.  That's why they called the police in the first place.  If the neighbor knew any of that, she would have never asked the police to see what was going on.


Now we're getting somewhere.  The neighbor didn't know what the hell she was talking about.  There was no crime, no evidence of a crime and nothing rising to the level of suspicion that a crime had been, was being, or was about to be, committed.


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Like I said, police follow standard police procedure.  That's the way they are trained.  If something went wrong while they were not following procedure, they could lose their job.  Yes, police do handcuff everybody until they know the situation presents no threat to them, again, that's how they are trained and it's perfectly legal.


You're avoiding the question.  Are you suggesting that is, or are you suggesting that it should be, standard police operating procedures to put every single Terry stop suspect in handcuffs?  Or every person they ever speak to that might be a criminal into handcuffs?

Don't talk around it; answer the questions above or you should quit talking about standard practice.  Either cuffing people who have not shown themselves to be a threat is standard practice or it is not.


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The police nor neighbor had none of that information.  That's why they called the police in the first place.  If the neighbor knew any of that, she would have never asked the police to see what was going on.


And, actually, the police did have that information.  Cop 3 had it prior to cop 1 and cop 2 entering the house.  He came in just seconds after Furdge was handcuffed and that's why they took the cuffs off without having talked to the home owner.  Cop 3 did some basic police work that didn't take more than a minute or so.  Cop 3 should stay on the force.  Cop 1 and cop 2 should be off the force until they take remedial constitution, remedial civil rights training


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

woodwork201 said:


> And, actually, the police did have that information.  Cop 3 had it prior to cop 1 and cop 2 entering the house.  He came in just seconds after Furdge was handcuffed and that's why they took the cuffs off without having talked to the home owner.  Cop 3 did some basic police work that didn't take more than a minute or so.  Cop 3 should stay on the force.  Cop 1 and cop 2 should be off the force until they take remedial constitution, remedial civil rights training



I'm sure  they already have because they broke no civil rights.  Correct, one officer went to talk to other neighbors while the first two officers investigated the complaint.  What's your problem with that?  And yes, the officer immediately took off the cuffs when they concluded there was no danger to them.  The term reasonable suspicion means that they have reason to believe something may be amiss.  They were told by the neighbor that the house was unoccupied.  Afterwards they explained to the subject they get calls all the time for squaters and burglaries of unoccupied homes. 

This was perfect police procedure as they do the same in my city all the time.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

woodwork201 said:


> You're avoiding the question.  Are you suggesting that is, or are you suggesting that it should be, standard police operating procedures to put every single Terry stop suspect in handcuffs?  Or every person they ever speak to that might be a criminal into handcuffs?
> 
> Don't talk around it; answer the questions above or you should quit talking about standard practice.  Either cuffing people who have not shown themselves to be a threat is standard practice or it is not.



Only if the officers don't know what's going on just yet.  Watch some old videos of C*O*P*S.   You see them do the exact same thing.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

woodwork201 said:


> Now we're getting somewhere.  The neighbor didn't know what the hell she was talking about.  There was no crime, no evidence of a crime and nothing rising to the level of suspicion that a crime had been, was being, or was about to be, committed.



They got a report of a person being in a home of a lady who just died.  When they got there the door was open as criminals are not known for their manners.  They called out to the person inside the house.  Once they entered the house they called him out again.  They had no idea the neighbor didn't know about the arrangement with the son.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

cnm said:


> That's probably because I don't have a constitution. Not that it matters as they don't seem to get respected where they exist.
> I accept police must obey the laws and I expect them to do so.



So once again we are back to the question none of you cop haters can answer:  What if this was a burglar and the cops just left because the person inside your house didn't respond to them and it was a burglar that stole $10,000 of your cash and belongings and they did nothing?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

woodwork201 said:


> Everything I have said is in the OP.   Have you still not listened to the 911 call, the radio traffic, and watched the body cam video?
> 
> I'm trying to be mostly polite here because, usually, it seems that we're in agreement with stuff but you're so wrong on this and keep making stuff up, refusing the look at the evidence, and you keep insisting on the same ridiculous statements like the house was vacant or should have been vacant.
> 
> The house was not likely vacant.  Who would be occupying it could have been the dead woman's son, trusted friends of the dead woman's son, or, for all the  nosy neighbor knows. the house could have been sold; there was no obligation to get her approval or to notify her in any of those cases.
> 
> No, the house was not supposed to be vacant.  It was not likely to be vacant.  It was occupied, legally, and to anyone who had any concern or actual knowledge, expectedly, by Furdge.



And apparently the neighbor knew none of that, did the right thing, and called police to check it out.  

No, I did overlook the video.  I guess in a hurry to keep up with the conversation I just skipped right over it to get to the next paragraph.  But I'm glad I went back to look at it as this was perfect police conduct by these officers.  The judge should be ran out of court because he obviously doesn't understand the laws.


----------



## cnm

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So once again we are back to the question none of you cop haters can answer: What if this was a burglar and the cops just left because the person inside your house didn't respond to them and it was a burglar that stole $10,000 of your cash and belongings and they did nothing?


You keep posing false dichotomies. This one seems to be a favourite, where the only alternatives for the police are to do nothing or storm the place with guns drawn.

I suppose if you're a hammer every problem looks like a nail. No doubt you're itching to hammer a nail.

But those aren't the only options. A simple third option was demonstrated just a little too late ie, check with the neighbours. There were also other options. Knock repeatedly, much louder, for one.

Still, I suppose those wouldn't have satisfied your lust for authoritarianism.
Oh well.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

White 6 said:


> What harm was that, again?  I must have missed it.


under the doctrine of presumed damages, in short below (the entire article really needs to be read for a full understanding)

The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the fact, proximate causation, and amount of each of  these types of damages, 26 _except where his cause of action is based on invasion of certain dignitary" interests, 27 such as privacy 28 and voting rights.29_   It is in these cases that the doctrine of presumed​damages played a role at common law. *That doctrine provides that substantial injury may be presumed to flow from *​*certain tortious acts, even though the plaintiff has presented no proof of actual loss, *when the torts invade interests that are intangible, rather than physical or economic. 30 As Professor Dobbs explains, "*the wrong is said to be damage in and of itself.*" 31​https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/c...sredir=1&article=4769&context=penn_law_review​


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Home​Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.
> _Payton v. New York_, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).
> 
> However, there are some exceptions. A warrantless search may be lawful:
> 
> If an officer is given consent to search; _Davis v. United States_, 328 U.S. 582 (1946)
> If the search is incident to a lawful arrest; _United States v. Robinson_, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)
> *If there is probable cause to search and exigent circumstances; Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)*
> If the items are in plain view; Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean?
> 
> 
> The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Find cases that help define what the Fourth Amendment means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.uscourts.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you lose.  No constitutional rights were violated here.


The judge says otherwise, and I'm not playing a game.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It's not my fault whites don't normally break into homes.


When you lie like that Ray it makes it harder to take your seriously.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

White 6 said:


> Mental anguish, due to her racist discrimination in calling the police, I suppose.
> Face it. The only reason the guy is suing is for the paycheck, not harm, and she does not have the money to make it worthwhile, though she is the one that called the police, giving them probable cause to think a crime was possibly being committed.


If that's the case, he should have named her as a defendant as well.  It is my experience that people like that HATE being dragged into court.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Colin norris said:


> Sorry mate.  You are wrong and the judge proved it. Piss off.


He's just a copsucker.


----------



## Colin norris

Jarlaxle said:


> He's just a copsucker.


No he's not.  The copper was wrong.  End if story.


----------



## Jarlaxle

woodwork201 said:


> It's very unfortunate for all the rest who that Sheriff abused after you that you didn't take a stand and sue.  It's sad for you that you accepted such a violation of your rights though it is lucky for you to have the contacts to get your van fixed.  Unfortunately, most people don't have the contacts to protect them from such abuse and as long as you allow yourself to be abused you enable the abuser to abuse the next person.  Every case of civil rights violation should result in civil and/or criminal penalties and then the cops, and government as a whole, will quit violating civil rights.
> 
> Often times the reason cops violate rights is for their own safety when there are other safety protocols they can use that don't require the risk of violent confrontation or at least increase the distance and safety of that confrontation.
> 
> I'd bet money that the two cops that went into that house will investigate with neighbors or the home owner before they enter a home because some karen neighbor calls about a suspicious African-American sitting on the steps.
> 
> Oh, I forgot to mention, she waved at him when she got home and he waved back; no fear, no panic.  A casual wave back and forth.  And then she went into the house and called the cops.



If he'd sued, he'd be dead.

It's more unfortunate that he didn't put a boat-tail hollow point through the sheriff's melon from a quarter mile.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It wouldn't bother me.  I have respect for authority.  The officer would have asked politely if the subject came out of the house when the officer was outside.


No, you don't have respect for authority. You worship cops and would happily lick their jackboots if ordered to do so.


----------



## Colin norris

Jarlaxle said:


> If he'd sued, he'd be dead.
> 
> It's more unfortunate that he didn't put a boat-tail hollow point through the sheriff's melon from a quarter mile.


Why is you gun toting republicans only answer is to shoot and kill every opposition? 
The same with democrats. You'd rather they were eliminated. What is wrong with you that idiots.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You wouldn't be singing constitutional rights if a burglar ripped you off with police there not doing their job.  You'd be singing lawsuit of the city for not doing anything about it.


You're projecting.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Colin norris said:


> Why is you gun toting republicans only answer is to shoot and kill every opposition?
> The same with democrats. You'd rather they were eliminated. What is wrong with you that idiots.



Are you on some sort of drugs?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So once again we are back to the question none of you cop haters can answer:  What if this was a burglar and the cops just left because the person inside your house didn't respond to them and it was a burglar that stole $10,000 of your cash and belongings and they did nothing?



Shrug and file with my insurance.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Colin norris said:


> No he's not.  The copper was wrong.  End if story.


Well...yes, he is. Ray WORSHIPS police with religious fervor. There is NOTHING a cop could do that he would not excuse.


----------



## Colin norris

Jarlaxle said:


> Well...yes, he is. Ray WORSHIPS police with religious fervor. There is NOTHING a cop could do that he would not excuse.


Year sure.  You've always got an excuse to support corrupt arsehol coppers.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> That would be great because that would mean no more police. Sissies like you are fucked because you never shot a gun in your life yet alone own one. People like me can take care of ourselves because we are well armed. So go ahead, tell Lightweight that you want an end to qualified immunity in Shitcago. I'd love to see that. And if I don't see you after that, I'll just assume what happened to ya.



again, fired more guns than you have, Welfare Ray...   but I don't rely on the cops because, honestly, they are kind of useless.   The few times I've had to call them, they never arrived in time to do any good.  

I worry more about the guys like you who own guns to compensate for your "shortcomings".  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> How did anybody know he was black until they seen him face to face?



You mean other than the Karen Next Door called in a Black man?


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> No she didn't because the owner recently passed away. She was being a good neighbor by calling the police. That's what I'd want somebody doing for me if I was gone and they seen a stranger in or around my apartment.
> 
> Crime is everybody's business. When you and your neighbors feel it's no longer your business, criminals celebrate.



Except this guy wasn't commiting a crime.  He was sitting on the porch of a house he rented.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Oh, a one year old article. Gee, thanks.


No problem.  Police Shortages is a lie.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> A stranger person in a vacant home is reason to have police at least check the situation out. Nothing wrong with that. Again, our police force encourages it.



And when they start paying fines for violating the rights of black people, they'll do differently.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Right. Our Chief is making it all up. One of my closest friends I knew since I was 9 years old is making it up as well. His police officer son told him a different story. Only you know the truth, right?



Well, the police have been pretty whiny lately, about why no one loves them anymore.   So I take anything they say with a truckload of road salt.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes but they detain the subject until they check things out. It doesn't take long to pull out a gun out of your back holster. Trust me, I carry one when I go out after dark.



Like I said, Ray, you are a hate crime looking for a place to happen.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Like I said, police follow standard police procedure. That's the way they are trained. If something went wrong while they were not following procedure, they could lose their job. Yes, police do handcuff everybody until they know the situation presents no threat to them, again, that's how they are trained and it's perfectly legal.



"I was only following my training".  That ranks up there with "I was only following orders".   Ask the Nazis how well that one works out.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> I'm sure they already have because they broke no civil rights. Correct, one officer went to talk to other neighbors while the first two officers investigated the complaint. What's your problem with that? And yes, the officer immediately took off the cuffs when they concluded there was no danger to them. The term reasonable suspicion means that they have reason to believe something may be amiss. They were told by the neighbor that the house was unoccupied. Afterwards they explained to the subject they get calls all the time for squaters and burglaries of unoccupied homes.



Except their "reasonable suspicion" was "Scary Black Man".  You think that if they found a white woman in that house, they'd have slapped the cuffs on her?  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Only if the officers don't know what's going on just yet. Watch some old videos of C*O*P*S. You see them do the exact same thing.



You mean the edited show where they handpicked the officers and didn't show cases that put the police in a bad light?


----------



## j-mac

otto105 said:


> Your description of the events is completely wrong.
> 
> Judge rules for Black man arrested in his new Monona home
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> "By the time an officer arrived, Furdge had moved to a bedroom. From the front door, the first officer could hear Furdge inside and said, "You want to come out here?" But Furdge, who appeared to be singing or talking on a phone, did not respond.
> 
> After a second officer showed up, they entered the home without knocking or announcing themselves, or checking with the owner.
> 
> With guns drawn, they yelled, "Police — come out with your hands up." Furdge did. He was handcuffed and held briefly until more officers came, and learned from other neighbors that Furdge had permission to stay at the home. They apologized to Furdge.
> 
> The encounter was captured on an officer's body camera."
> 
> 
> 
> Why is your description so factually wrong?


1st…the initial officer did announce himself as police…why are you lying about what happened?


----------



## j-mac

woodwork201 said:


> So, in every "terry stop" or other investigation where the cop feels like he has reasonable suspicion, those he suspects are held in handcuffs until the matter is cleared?  If that's the procedure it should be in every case, not just the case of black men.
> 
> And, of course, if it were every case, I think that even you and Ray would be up in arms.


In most cases yes…At least that is the procedure…in this case they were confronting a situation where they didn’t know anyone was supposed to be in the house. Not the same as a traffic stop.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Except their "reasonable suspicion" was "Scary Black Man". You think that if they found a white woman in that house, they'd have slapped the cuffs on her?



Don't know, but they are much less likely to be in danger with a white woman than they are a black man.  Black men are responsible for over 50% of our murders in this country.  

If you weren't such an anti-semite self-hating white you'd already know the police had no idea if the guy was black, white, or pink with purple pokadots.  The dispatcher said "somebody sitting on the steps" and that's the only information about the subject the police had.  They didn't know he was black until he came out of the bedroom.  And yes, they entered the house, guns were drawn, and they had no idea the guy wasn't white.  Imagine that!!!!!!  I'm sure that will keep you awake half the night tonight.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Except this guy wasn't commiting a crime. He was sitting on the porch of a house he rented.



And the police had no idea what was up until they checked out the complaint.  That's what they do. 



JoeB131 said:


> No problem. Police Shortages is a lie.



You know OCD, you wouldn't look as stupid if you read all the posts since you were last here, especially the one I made where I gave three links to the officer shortage problem here and across the country.  I know you don't read links, that way it keeps you ignorant, but you might want to try it sometime before making a fool out of yourself like you always do here. 



JoeB131 said:


> And when they start paying fines for violating the rights of black people, they'll do differently.



Good.  I hope the same thing happens to your house.  I hope you come home to find your house ransacked and when you call the police, they tell you they were there while the place was getting robbed, but they didn't want to violate anybody's constitutional rights so they just left when they got no response from the person inside.  Then you'd be here bitching how police are not doing their jobs.


----------



## Blues Man

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Your OP didn't say they knocked, they said police yelled for him to come out which he didn't.


Still not a reason to force entry


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> again, fired more guns than you have, Welfare Ray... but I don't rely on the cops because, honestly, they are kind of useless. The few times I've had to call them, they never arrived in time to do any good.
> 
> I worry more about the guys like you who own guns to compensate for your "shortcomings".



You never fired a gun in your life.  You made that evident when I told the story about my Section 8 neighbors when he shot at his wife.  You need to think your lies out better before you post OCD.  Don't worry about guys like me.  CCW carriers are the most law abiding citizens in this country and I posted that link as well.  We use our firearms over a million times a year for self-defense or the defense of sissies like you who are too scared of guns to carry one.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Blues Man said:


> Still not a reason to force entry



There was no forced entry.  The door was wide open making the officer even more suspicious.


----------



## Blues Man

Ray From Cleveland said:


> There was no forced entry.  The door was wide open making the officer even more suspicious.


Suspicious of what?

There was no evidence of any crime


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Jarlaxle said:


> Well...yes, he is. Ray WORSHIPS police with religious fervor. There is NOTHING a cop could do that he would not excuse.



Sure there is, when they do something wrong.  But we have too many people here ignorant about police procedure to realize the officers were within their authority.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Blues Man said:


> Suspicious of what?
> 
> There was no evidence of any crime



When burglars break into a home they don't close the door behind them in most cases.  The call the officers got was about a vacant home with somebody sitting on the steps .  When they got there, the door was open.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Jarlaxle said:


> Shrug and file with my insurance.



And if you had to spend your own money to replace stolen items because you maxed out benefits, or had problems because they stole your identity and it would be a nightmare trying to straighten it out, you'd be the first to bitch.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> When you lie like that Ray it makes it harder to take your seriously.



You leftists sure have zero sense of humor, I'll tell ya.......


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> The judge says otherwise, and I'm not playing a game.



Correct.  An Obama apointee that's probably a cop hater as well.  We'll see what an appeals judge says.  The law is the law after all, and just because some rogue judge doesn't follow the law doesn't mean his is the final word.


----------



## Blues Man

Ray From Cleveland said:


> When burglars break into a home they don't close the door behind them in most cases.  The call the officers got was about a vacant home with somebody sitting on the steps .  When they got there, the door was open.


You got a link for that wild assumption?

What causes more suspicion a closed door or an open one?

And the home wasn't vacant because the owner gave permission for people to stay there.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

cnm said:


> You keep posing false dichotomies. This one seems to be a favourite, where the only alternatives for the police are to do nothing or storm the place with guns drawn.
> 
> I suppose if you're a hammer every problem looks like a nail. No doubt you're itching to hammer a nail.
> 
> But those aren't the only options. A simple third option was demonstrated just a little too late ie, check with the neighbours. There were also other options. Knock repeatedly, much louder, for one.
> 
> Still, I suppose those wouldn't have satisfied your lust for authoritarianism.
> Oh well.



There is nothing authoritarian about law and order.  This country was built on it.  When you know better than the experts that created police procedure that officers go through at the academy, then you can tell people what they should have done.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Blues Man said:


> You got a link for that wild assumption?
> 
> What causes more suspicion a closed door or an open one?
> 
> And the home wasn't vacant because the owner gave permission for people to stay there.



And the police didn't know that.  All they knew of was the complaint by the neighbor. 

I listen to my police scanner all the time.  When they get calls like this the officer announces  they have an open door to warn the other officers on the way or already there at a different area of the house.


----------



## White 6

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> under the doctrine of presumed damages, in short below (the entire article really needs to be read for a full understanding)
> 
> The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the fact, proximate causation, and amount of each of  these types of damages, 26 _except where his cause of action is based on invasion of certain dignitary" interests, 27 such as privacy 28 and voting rights.29_   It is in these cases that the doctrine of presumed​damages played a role at common law. *That doctrine provides that substantial injury may be presumed to flow from *​*certain tortious acts, even though the plaintiff has presented no proof of actual loss, *when the torts invade interests that are intangible, rather than physical or economic. 30 As Professor Dobbs explains, "*the wrong is said to be damage in and of itself.*" 31​https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/c...sredir=1&article=4769&context=penn_law_review​


I understand the ability to sue under Bivens ruling.  I also understand each cause and amount must be proven individually by the plaintiff.  In other words not all transgressions are presumed to be equal in the eyes of the court.  A positive outcome, for the plaintiff could be as little as $1 dollar.  Meaning lawyers fees become billable to the defendant(s), and that could be extensive, so the winner of the suit becomes the lawyers for the defendant, the lawyer's payday, but actually do little for the plaintiff, true justice in America served again. 
Like I have said, I will wait to see the award and any appeals, but if I were Furdge, I wouldn't quit my day job, or in his case, he should probably continue to seek one.  It is unlikely a judge would award him enough to buy that small home, on loan to him for two months.


----------



## Blues Man

Ray From Cleveland said:


> And the police didn't know that.  All they knew of was the complaint by the neighbor.
> 
> I listen to my police scanner all the time.  When they get calls like this the officer announces  they have an open door to warn the other officers on the way or already there at a different area of the house.


A complaint is still not evidence of a crime.

They should have waited outside until they got the person's attention.  If the door was open he would have had to come out sooner or later


----------



## L.K.Eder

fuckin gazpacho police.


----------



## White 6

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> If that's the case, he should have named her as a defendant as well.  It is my experience that people like that HATE being dragged into court.


He should have named her a defendant instead.  Only problem is, it would not be worth the lawyer's time to take it on contingency.  You didn't think Furdge was paying this lawyer, did you?  He didn't even have a place to stay except for the two month loan of the house.  If you are going to sue on somebody elses dime, you go where the money lives.  In this case, the small town of Monono, population 8,400 (+/-).


----------



## Jarlaxle

Colin norris said:


> Year sure.  You've always got an excuse to support corrupt arsehol coppers.


So...have you not read ANYTHING I posted?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Ray From Cleveland said:


> And if you had to spend your own money to replace stolen items because you maxed out benefits, or had problems because they stole your identity and it would be a nightmare trying to straighten it out, you'd be the first to bitch.


That would be my own fault for not having the proper insurance. Stop projecting.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Jarlaxle said:


> That would be my own fault for not having the proper insurance. Stop projecting.



Saying anything you can to avoid the point, aint cha?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Blues Man said:


> A complaint is still not evidence of a crime.
> 
> They should have waited outside until they got the person's attention.  If the door was open he would have had to come out sooner or later



Well when you get hired to make police policy, then that's what you do.  But police policy is created by many years of past mistakes, some of which caused the loss of life.  I know police officers.  They do things one way, and that is the way they are trained.  Everything they do is for a reason.  Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not the best way.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Saying anything you can to avoid the point, aint cha?


You have no point.


----------



## Colin norris

Jarlaxle said:


> So...have you not read ANYTHING I posted?


That's correct. Once is plenty.  
The judge ruled the cops were wrong. End if story. Get over it.


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> There was no forced entry.  The door was wide open making the officer even more suspicious.


The door was not wide open.  Once again, watch the video.  The front door and storm door were both closed but unlocked.


----------



## woodwork201

Just curious, were the cops in Canada right when they ran over an old woman with their horses?  Were they wrong to break up a peaceful protest?


----------



## otto105

j-mac said:


> 1st…the initial officer did announce himself as police…why are you lying about what happened?


No, he stated that he wanted him to come out. Never did either cop announce themselves.


----------



## otto105

woodwork201 said:


> Just curious, were the cops in Canada right when they ran over an old woman with their horses?  Were they wrong to break up a peaceful protest?


Had the Canadian police for days been announcing potential arrests and clearing the streets?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

woodwork201 said:


> Just curious, were the cops in Canada right when they ran over an old woman with their horses?  Were they wrong to break up a peaceful protest?



Police are employees that are only following instructions, however the leadership is responsible for that.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

woodwork201 said:


> The door was not wide open.  Once again, watch the video.  The front door and storm door were both closed but unlocked.



And your point is??????


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Colin norris said:


> That's correct. Once is plenty.
> The judge ruled the cops were wrong. End if story. Get over it.



So when an appeals judge overturns the ruling, are you going to say "end of story" again?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Jarlaxle said:


> You have no point.



Sure I do.  If you were a person who didn't have insurance against robbery and lost a lot of money because a police officer was at your home while you were being robbed, you'd be the first one complaining about the police not doing their jobs.


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So once again we are back to the question none of you cop haters can answer:  What if this was a burglar and the cops just left because the person inside your house didn't respond to them and it was a burglar that stole $10,000 of your cash and belongings and they did nothing?


The police have no obligation to protect any individual.  That's why I am prepared to protect myself and mine.

That we might lose some stuff because the police followed the Constitution is expected.  It's the tradeoff we have for liberty and for constitutional protection of that liberty.


----------



## otto105

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So when an appeals judge overturns the ruling, are you going to say "end of story" again?


And when it doesn't happen....


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> When burglars break into a home they don't close the door behind them in most cases.  The call the officers got was about a vacant home with somebody sitting on the steps .  When they got there, the door was open.


Seriously, Ray.  Get your eyes and ears checked.

Yesterday you were arguing that it was the back porch.  Now it's finally the front steps but the door was open.  But the door was NOT open.  Watch them open the storm door and then try the front door and they opened it.

You've lost all credibility because you've been wrong so many times about the facts.  You need to pay attention to the story and the YouTube video and then make your arguments based on reality.  But, like I said, now you've lost credibility and it is likely to be assumed that your continued defense of the cops is simply a case of not being willing to admit you were wrong.


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> And your point is??????


The point is that every argument you made was made without having paid a bit of attention to the facts.  You're blindly, sheepishly, defending the police.  

Two people might reasonably be aware of the facts and disagree on the implications but you've not even been aware of the facts and have mostly chosen to ignore the facts.  It demonstrates that your view is not based on the facts.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Colin norris said:


> That's correct. Once is plenty.
> The judge ruled the cops were wrong. End if story. Get over it.


WHY,EXACTLY, DO YOU THINK I DISAGREE WITH THAT, YOU MENTAL MIDGET?!


----------



## Jarlaxle

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Sure I do.  If you were a person who didn't have insurance against robbery and lost a lot of money because a police officer was at your home while you were being robbed, you'd be the first one complaining about the police not doing their jobs.


Well, no, you're projecting.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Jarlaxle said:


> Well, no, you're projecting.



Yes I am because I'm using common sense to project.  Just about anybody would be pissed insurance or not.  Did you ever have to deal with an insurance company for a loss?  It's not a pretty sight.  And as for insurance, the less claims the lower your premiums.  It's to everybody's benefit when they pay less claims.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

woodwork201 said:


> The point is that every argument you made was made without having paid a bit of attention to the facts.  You're blindly, sheepishly, defending the police.
> 
> Two people might reasonably be aware of the facts and disagree on the implications but you've not even been aware of the facts and have mostly chosen to ignore the facts.  It demonstrates that your view is not based on the facts.



I am using facts.  I watched that video twice; not the dispatch part but the body cam footage.  What I seen was perfect police protocol.  I've seen the same thing on police shows, I hear police do the exact same things in my city on my scanner app.  Yes, I do defend the police when they are right.  There is nothing wrong with that. 

Our courts give the police the right to search a home or automobile when they have reasonable suspicion, and when somebody doesn't answer the door of a vacant home (which was the information the officers got) with open doors, of course it's suspicious.  They have the legal authority to enter and investigate and that's why this anti-cop judge is completely wrong.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

otto105 said:


> And when it doesn't happen....



I believe it will happen because the officers conducted themselves within the constraints of the law.  Nobody knows for sure.  It seems that Wisconsin is kind of a Fd up place.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

woodwork201 said:


> The police have no obligation to protect any individual.  That's why I am prepared to protect myself and mine.
> 
> That we might lose some stuff because the police followed the Constitution is expected.  It's the tradeoff we have for liberty and for constitutional protection of that liberty.



The police conducted themselves within the Constitution as far as the courts are concerned.  They do this in every similar situation.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Just leave?  What would happen if somebody was robbing the place and got away with it because the officer(s) didn't follow up when nobody responded to their calls?


That you and others on the authoritarian right are willing to sacrifice liberty for the illusion of ‘security’ comes as no surprise, given conservatives’ overall contempt for our rights and protected liberties.

As agents of the state LEOs are subject to the same Constitutional limits and restrictions as any other manifestation of government.

What LEOs might ‘think,’ ‘believe,’ or ‘assume’ is legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

All that matters is evidence – and if agents of the state have evidence of criminal wrongdoing, they must take that evidence to a judge and secure a warrant before entering the home of a private citizen.

Absent evidence, law enforcement has no authority to enter the home of a private citizen – their only recourse is to leave.

That these most fundamental tenets of American law and governance must be explained to a conservative likewise comes as no surprise.


----------



## otto105

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I believe it will happen because the officers conducted themselves within the constraints of the law.  Nobody knows for sure.  It seems that Wisconsin is kind of a Fd up place.


Clear cut, seems to be hard for you to grasp.


----------



## Colin norris

Jarlaxle said:


> WHY,EXACTLY, DO YOU THINK I DISAGREE WITH THAT, YOU MENTAL MIDGET?!


I have no insight into how you think after you reply like that.  
Leave me out of that question.


----------



## woodwork201

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> That you and others on the authoritarian right are willing to sacrifice liberty for the illusion of ‘security’ comes as no surprise, given conservatives’ overall contempt for our rights and protected liberties.
> 
> As agents of the state LEOs are subject to the same Constitutional limits and restrictions as any other manifestation of government.
> 
> What LEOs might ‘think,’ ‘believe,’ or ‘assume’ is legally and constitutionally irrelevant.
> 
> All that matters is evidence – and if agents of the state have evidence of criminal wrongdoing, they must take that evidence to a judge and secure a warrant before entering the home of a private citizen.
> 
> Absent evidence, law enforcement has no authority to enter the home of a private citizen – their only recourse is to leave.
> 
> That these most fundamental tenets of American law and governance must be explained to a conservative likewise comes as no surprise.



There's no connection between the authoritarian right and conservatism; two completely different things.  I'm not sure now where Ray fits in but, at least in this case, he's not being conservative; he's being authoritarian.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Colin norris said:


> I have no insight into how you think after you reply like that.
> Leave me out of that question.


Are you literate?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

woodwork201 said:


> There's no connection between the authoritarian right and conservatism; two completely different things.  I'm not sure now where Ray fits in but, at least in this case, he's not being conservative; he's being authoritarian.



Not at all, I'm pro-police but that doesn't make me an authoritarian.  I just believe as we keep weakening our police departments we end up with more problems.  A 30% increase in violent crime between 2020 and 2021 is a pretty good indicator.  And as I mentioned already we have a growing problem of getting new police recruits.  The problem is not just in my city but nationwide.  It was not that long ago when a position for a police officer came up in any city, hundreds of mostly males took the test to see if they could get the job.  It was a glory position to be a police officer.  Now putting on a cops uniform automatically comes with a target on the back.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

otto105 said:


> Clear cut, seems to be hard for you to grasp.



You think it's clear cut but I don't.  Why?  Because police have done the same all across the country for years.  Reasonable suspicion gives a police officer the authority to exercise his decision on search and seizure.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> That you and others on the authoritarian right are willing to sacrifice liberty for the illusion of ‘security’ comes as no surprise, given conservatives’ overall contempt for our rights and protected liberties.
> 
> As agents of the state LEOs are subject to the same Constitutional limits and restrictions as any other manifestation of government.
> 
> What LEOs might ‘think,’ ‘believe,’ or ‘assume’ is legally and constitutionally irrelevant.
> 
> All that matters is evidence – and if agents of the state have evidence of criminal wrongdoing, they must take that evidence to a judge and secure a warrant before entering the home of a private citizen.
> 
> Absent evidence, law enforcement has no authority to enter the home of a private citizen – their only recourse is to leave.
> 
> That these most fundamental tenets of American law and governance must be explained to a conservative likewise comes as no surprise.



No you are totally wrong on that and I posted my links as evidence.  Search and seizure is not restricted to warrants only.  The courts have ruled on this many years ago.  

*The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.* 

The key word in the fourth is *unreasonable.*  If a police officer stops a motorist who is a convicted felon, but takes notice of a firearm in his car, it's not unreasonable to search that car and confiscate the weapon he or she is not supposed to be in possession of.  

Taking the amendment to this situation, the officers got a call to check out a vacant house that was occupied by at least one person.  They knocked at the door and got no response.  It's reasonable to assume whoever is in that house is not supposed to be there because they didn't respond; in other words trying to hide.  

The officers didn't search or confiscate anything.  They simply wanted to make sure the person occupying the home was there legally so they entered.  

I don't know what will happen with this case, but I'm sure it will be appealed.  I can't imagine that an appeals judge would find the actions of these officers were unreasonable.


----------



## Colin norris

Jarlaxle said:


> Are you literate?


Not at all. 
All my posts are written by a robot and checked by God.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Not at all, I'm pro-police but that doesn't make me an authoritarian.  I just believe as we keep weakening our police departments we end up with more problems.  A 30% increase in violent crime between 2020 and 2021 is a pretty good indicator.  And as I mentioned already we have a growing problem of getting new police recruits.  The problem is not just in my city but nationwide.  It was not that long ago when a position for a police officer came up in any city, hundreds of mostly males took the test to see if they could get the job.  It was a glory position to be a police officer.  Now putting on a cops uniform automatically comes with a target on the back.


No, it just makes you a copsucker. You will excuse ANY action by a cop, no matter how bad.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Jarlaxle said:


> No, it just makes you a copsucker. You will excuse ANY action by a cop, no matter how bad.



And you are a criminal sucker.  Which is worse?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Ray From Cleveland said:


> And you are a criminal sucker.  Which is worse?


Yes, it's horrible to have a problem with swaggering bullies on a power trip, hoping this is the day they finally get to kill someone.


----------



## pknopp

Ray From Cleveland said:


> And you are a criminal sucker.  Which is worse?



There was no crime here other than the one committed by the police.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Don't know, but they are much less likely to be in danger with a white woman than they are a black man. Black men are responsible for over 50% of our murders in this country.



Tell us how you aren't racist, Ray, that shit never gets old. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> If you weren't such an anti-semite self-hating white you'd already know the police had no idea if the guy was black, white, or pink with purple pokadots. The dispatcher said "somebody sitting on the steps" and that's the only information about the subject the police had. They didn't know he was black until he came out of the bedroom. And yes, they entered the house, guns were drawn, and they had no idea the guy wasn't white. Imagine that!!!!!! I'm sure that will keep you awake half the night tonight.



Actually, the neighbor reported a black man, and that was relayed to the police.  They certainly knew he was black when they slapped the cuffs on him for absolutely no good reason. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> And the police had no idea what was up until they checked out the complaint. That's what they do.



And then they needlessly treated a black man like a criminal, because that's what they do.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> You know OCD, you wouldn't look as stupid if you read all the posts since you were last here, especially the one I made where I gave three links to the officer shortage problem here and across the country. I know you don't read links, that way it keeps you ignorant, but you might want to try it sometime before making a fool out of yourself like you always do here.



I don't read YOUR links, because they are a waste of my time.  Fact was, all the caterwauling about how the public doesn't love them, very few cops quit during Trump Riots/Plague/Recession, because why quit a good paying job?  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Good. I hope the same thing happens to your house. I hope you come home to find your house ransacked and when you call the police, they tell you they were there while the place was getting robbed, but they didn't want to violate anybody's constitutional rights so they just left when they got no response from the person inside. Then you'd be here bitching how police are not doing their jobs.



Actually, when I lived in Cicero, that exactly is what happened to me when I was out on maneuvers with my Guard unit.   And the cops couldn't have been more useless in that situation.   



Ray From Cleveland said:


> You never fired a gun in your life. You made that evident when I told the story about my Section 8 neighbors when he shot at his wife. You need to think your lies out better before you post OCD. Don't worry about guys like me. CCW carriers are the most law abiding citizens in this country and I posted that link as well. We use our firearms over a million times a year for self-defense or the defense of sissies like you who are too scared of guns to carry one.



Again, guy, people like you are the problem, and we keep getting stories about how one ofyou loses your shit and starts shooting up a school or a mall or a theater.  

And, no, I don't believe your story about your section 8 neighbors at all... I noticed you stopped bitching about them when I started mocking your racism, though.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Well when you get hired to make police policy, then that's what you do. But police policy is created by many years of past mistakes, some of which caused the loss of life. I know police officers. They do things one way, and that is the way they are trained. Everything they do is for a reason. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not the best way.



Um, yeah, we just had a year of riots because the Police refused to change their tactics dealing with people of color.   No thank you. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> I am using facts. I watched that video twice; not the dispatch part but the body cam footage. What I seen was perfect police protocol. I've seen the same thing on police shows, I hear police do the exact same things in my city on my scanner app. Yes, I do defend the police when they are right. There is nothing wrong with that.



You defend the police when a mentally unstable cop shoots a black kid playing with a toy.  Come to think of it, I don't think you've ever criticized the police unless they were hassling a white person. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Our courts give the police the right to search a home or automobile when they have reasonable suspicion, and when somebody doesn't answer the door of a vacant home (which was the information the officers got) with open doors, of course it's suspicious. They have the legal authority to enter and investigate and that's why this anti-cop judge is completely wrong.



Again, cops were fine up until the point they slapped cuffs on a man who was unarmed and not committing any crime, just happened to be black at the wrong place at the wrong time. 

That's why the cops are being sued.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Not at all, I'm pro-police but that doesn't make me an authoritarian. I just believe as we keep weakening our police departments we end up with more problems. A 30% increase in violent crime between 2020 and 2021 is a pretty good indicator. And as I mentioned already we have a growing problem of getting new police recruits. The problem is not just in my city but nationwide. It was not that long ago when a position for a police officer came up in any city, hundreds of mostly males took the test to see if they could get the job. It was a glory position to be a police officer. Now putting on a cops uniform automatically comes with a target on the back.



We had a 30% increase in crime because millions of people were locked in their houses and lost their jobs.  Most violent crime is domestic, and people had more of each other than they could stand.  

There is no police shortage, and there is no epidemic of cops being shot.  The number of police killed in line of duty dropped from 48 in 2019 to 45 in 2020 despite the recession/riots/plague.   It jumped up to 60 in 2021, but again, this is NOT a huge number, given how many fucking guns the NRA is flooding our streets with. (Compare the murder of regular people, which increased from 16,000 to 20,000. ) 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> You think it's clear cut but I don't. Why? Because police have done the same all across the country for years. Reasonable suspicion gives a police officer the authority to exercise his decision on search and seizure.



Yes, the police have been abusing the rights of people of color for years!  That's the problem, Ray, they are fed up with it.  They are fed up with stop and frisk, they are fed up with Driving While Black stops and they are fed up with thug cops shooting them for no good reason.


----------



## Blues Man

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Well when you get hired to make police policy, then that's what you do.  But police policy is created by many years of past mistakes, some of which caused the loss of life.  I know police officers.  They do things one way, and that is the way they are trained.  Everything they do is for a reason.  Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not the best way.


Spoken like someone who has never been hassled by cops for no reason


----------



## otto105

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You think it's clear cut but I don't.  Why?  Because police have done the same all across the country for years.  Reasonable suspicion gives a police officer the authority to exercise his decision on search and seizure.


Yeah, you don’t because it happened to a black guy.

Clear violation.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

otto105 said:


> Yeah, you don’t because it happened to a black guy.
> 
> Clear violation.



You race baiters can't win this argument because they entered the home without a description of who was in the house.  All you have to do is watch the video to know that.


----------



## otto105

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You race baiters can't win this argument because they entered the home without a description of who was in the house.  All you have to do is watch the video to know that.


They entered home after viewing the color of the guy doing nothing in it copsucker.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Blues Man said:


> Spoken like someone who has never been hassled by cops for no reason



I've had my run ins with them but that doesn't mean I don't respect the law or police authority.  Like any other entity you have mostly good people and a few bad.  If I thought these officers did anything out of the ordinary I would be speaking against them, but as I stated I've seen other police do the exact same thing in similar situations all the time including where I live.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

otto105 said:


> They entered home after viewing the color of the guy doing nothing in it copsucker.



Watch the video.  You race baiters make up all these stories in your head that are so easily proven to be lies.  Dispatch didn't tell them what the guy looked like.  The first time they seen him was after they entered the house with their guns drawn.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> We had a 30% increase in crime because millions of people were locked in their houses and lost their jobs. Most violent crime is domestic, and people had more of each other than they could stand.
> 
> There is no police shortage, and there is no epidemic of cops being shot. The number of police killed in line of duty dropped from 48 in 2019 to 45 in 2020 despite the recession/riots/plague. It jumped up to 60 in 2021, but again, this is NOT a huge number, given how many fucking guns the NRA is flooding our streets with. (Compare the murder of regular people, which increased from 16,000 to 20,000. )



We had an increase of crime because of the uncivilized neanderthals that looted and destroyed their cities created an anti-cop movement.  You leftists are nothing but disciples of Satan.  That's why you always side with evil and against the good.  Look at who your hero is that started all this; George Floyd.  A drug addict with a long rap sheet.  This is who you canonize.  Then Communist led cities erected murals of this druggie loser, afterwards murals of Black Lowlifes Matter on the streets and leading the de-fund police movement. 

When you tell evil you are on their side, they're going to listen.



JoeB131 said:


> Yes, the police have been abusing the rights of people of color for years! That's the problem, Ray, they are fed up with it. They are fed up with stop and frisk, they are fed up with Driving While Black stops and they are fed up with thug cops shooting them for no good reason.



If they are fed up with it let them leave for a country with no law and order.  Stop and frisk ended years ago and murder shot up, especially black murders.  Driving while black is a thing you made up in your head from watching too many old television movies.  Cops have better things to do with their time.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Um, yeah, we just had a year of riots because the Police refused to change their tactics dealing with people of color. No thank you.



No, it's that lowlifes look for any opportunity to commit crimes.  Then your now VP encouraged people to donate to a Go Fund Me account to bail them out so they could continue breaking the laws.  The commies allowed it to continue as long as possible hoping it would aid them in electing a Communist President.  Oh yeah, the summer of love don't you know. 

The officer was immediately arrested after the incident.  He was charged and found guilty.  It had nothing to do with changing tactics.  



JoeB131 said:


> Again, cops were fine up until the point they slapped cuffs on a man who was unarmed and not committing any crime, just happened to be black at the wrong place at the wrong time.
> 
> That's why the cops are being sued.



And because it's police policy it will be overturned by an American judge.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, the neighbor reported a black man, and that was relayed to the police. They certainly knew he was black when they slapped the cuffs on him for absolutely no good reason.



Police do that all the time to everybody.  Now why don't you get your ignorant ass to the OP and give me a time stamp where the dispatcher told the officers the guy was black on the video. 



JoeB131 said:


> I don't read YOUR links, because they are a waste of my time. Fact was, all the caterwauling about how the public doesn't love them, very few cops quit during Trump Riots/Plague/Recession, because why quit a good paying job?



Why?  Because your God was winning that war and still is.  You don't read my links because showing a leftist the truth is like showing Dracula a cross.  Nobody wants to be cop any longer thanks to the hostility against them created  by leftists.  And if you wanted to educate yourself by reading my links it would tell you that police early retirements are up in record numbers  



JoeB131 said:


> Actually, when I lived in Cicero, that exactly is what happened to me when I was out on maneuvers with my Guard unit. And the cops couldn't have been more useless in that situation.



You are so full of shit.  The cops were not at your house while it was being robbed.  If they were they would have done the same thing that these police officers did and you would have never suffered any losses.  



JoeB131 said:


> Again, guy, people like you are the problem, and we keep getting stories about how one ofyou loses your shit and starts shooting up a school or a mall or a theater.
> 
> And, no, I don't believe your story about your section 8 neighbors at all... I noticed you stopped bitching about them when I started mocking your racism, though.



Then look it up yourself.  CCW holders are the most law abiding citizens.  You can't even apply for a license if you've ever been in any trouble with the law in the past, and you have to renew your license every 5 years which they once again do a background check. 

Why would I bitch about my section 8 neighbors?  They left over a year ago and it's been quiet since, almost like it was a white neighborhood again.  I don't talk with the asshole owner but my tenants have.  From what I was told they did thousands of dollars in damages he hasn't repaired yet.  Because we had to call the cops so many times, the city harasses him as well.  They made him put two new roofs on those houses and there was nothing wrong with the roofs he had.  They are trying to harass him into selling and getting the F out of here which would be great.  Those roofs had to run him around 8 grand or so.  But that's what you get for renting to section 8 people.  He was jumping for joy getting all that government money, and now he's paying it all back.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

pknopp said:


> There was no crime here other than the one committed by the police.



And what crime is that?  If you tell me entering that house I'm only going to respond with the post number where I put a link showing there is no truth to that.


----------



## pknopp

Ray From Cleveland said:


> And what crime is that?  If you tell me entering that house I'm only going to respond with the post number where I put a link showing there is no truth to that.



 It's too bad the taxpayers aren't going to be able to use that argument.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

pknopp said:


> It's too bad the taxpayers aren't going to be able to use that argument.



Yeah, it would be stupid of them to point out the law.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> We had an increase of crime because of the uncivilized neanderthals that looted and destroyed their cities created an anti-cop movement. You leftists are nothing but disciples of Satan. That's why you always side with evil and against the good. Look at who your hero is that started all this; George Floyd. A drug addict with a long rap sheet. This is who you canonize. Then Communist led cities erected murals of this druggie loser, afterwards murals of Black Lowlifes Matter on the streets and leading the de-fund police movement.



Wow, it's always funny when you talk about Satan like that's a real thing.  

George Floyd was a guy who was trying to get his life back together.  That we criminalize addictions (for poor black people) was the problem, not his taking them. 

No excuse for what the cops did. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> If they are fed up with it let them leave for a country with no law and order. Stop and frisk ended years ago and murder shot up, especially black murders. Driving while black is a thing you made up in your head from watching too many old television movies. Cops have better things to do with their time.


Do they?  Like what, hanging out at the donut shop? 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> No, it's that lowlifes look for any opportunity to commit crimes. Then your now VP encouraged people to donate to a Go Fund Me account to bail them out so they could continue breaking the laws. The commies allowed it to continue as long as possible hoping it would aid them in electing a Communist President. Oh yeah, the summer of love don't you know.


Uh, until they are convicted, they are entitled to bail.  Most of them never will be. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> The officer was immediately arrested after the incident. He was charged and found guilty. It had nothing to do with changing tactics.


You mean they actually bothered to charge a cop for a change.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Why? Because your God was winning that war and still is. You don't read my links because showing a leftist the truth is like showing Dracula a cross. Nobody wants to be cop any longer thanks to the hostility against them created by leftists. And if you wanted to educate yourself by reading my links it would tell you that police early retirements are up in record numbers



I don't read your links because they are right wing crap.  If there were a shitload of cops quitting, I'd certainly see a lot more of them looking for resumes... and I really haven't.   I did actually see a spike after Jason van Dyke was charged, but not so much after 2020. 

In short, if cops want to get out because they can't abuse black folks anymore, we should all be glad when they leave. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> You are so full of shit. The cops were not at your house while it was being robbed. If they were they would have done the same thing that these police officers did and you would have never suffered any losses.



Yeah, right.  Cicero cops would have probably helped them load their car, they were so notoriously corrupt.


----------



## otto105

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Watch the video.  You race baiters make up all these stories in your head that are so easily proven to be lies.  Dispatch didn't tell them what the guy looked like.  The first time they seen him was after they entered the house with their guns drawn.


That was the second time hillbillie.


----------



## otto105

ray

Bad day for you. The GA racist 3 just got convicted in GA of racist motivation.


Life on top of the previous sentences.


----------



## j-mac

otto105 said:


> No, he stated that he wanted him to come out. Never did either cop announce themselves.


Wrong…watch it again.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

otto105 said:


> ray
> 
> Bad day for you. The GA racist 3 just got convicted in GA of racist motivation.
> 
> 
> Life on top of the previous sentences.



Why would that make it a bad day for me?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

otto105 said:


> That was the second time hillbillie.



Yes, us hillbillies in Cleveland, Ohio.   Maybe you shouldn't have dropped out of school so early so they could have taught you Cleveland isn't down south.

So when was the first time they seen him?  It wasn't on the dispatch recording nor the video.  The first time they seen him was when they were in the house.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> I don't read your links because they are right wing crap. If there were a shitload of cops quitting, I'd certainly see a lot more of them looking for resumes... and I really haven't. I did actually see a spike after Jason van Dyke was charged, but not so much after 2020.



Yeah, you really can't trust those right-wing local news stations in an all Democrat city like ours and that that evil right-wing Associated Press.  



JoeB131 said:


> Yeah, right. Cicero cops would have probably helped them load their car, they were so notoriously corrupt.



Yeah, so you lied like always.  No cops around when they ripped you off.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yeah, you really can't trust those right-wing local news stations in an all Democrat city like ours and that that evil right-wing Associated Press.


Actually, they just report the Cop-aganda. "Oh, wah, people don't love us, so we are going to give up on generous pensions in a job we aren't expected to work all that hard. 

There are professions that are really suffering massive attrition, like education.  Most teachers quit in the first five years.  Cops tend to be a pretty cushy job, if you can get it. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yeah, so you lied like always. No cops around when they ripped you off.



Again, Cicero Cops, they were probably in on it.


----------



## otto105

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes, us hillbillies in Cleveland, Ohio.   Maybe you shouldn't have dropped out of school so early so they could have taught you Cleveland isn't down south.
> 
> So when was the first time they seen him?  It wasn't on the dispatch recording nor the video.  The first time they seen him was when they were in the house.


How did they know what room he was in before entering the house without a warrant, announcement and with guns drawn?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

otto105 said:


> How did they know what room he was in before entering the house without a warrant, announcement and with guns drawn?



What makes you think they knew what room he was in until he responded to the call WHEN THEY WERE IN THE HOUSE?????


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, they just report the Cop-aganda. "Oh, wah, people don't love us, so we are going to give up on generous pensions in a job we aren't expected to work all that hard.
> 
> There are professions that are really suffering massive attrition, like education.  Most teachers quit in the first five years.  Cops tend to be a pretty cushy job, if you can get it.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Cicero Cops, they were probably in on it.



At times when I pray, I thank God for being born into a good family, in the greatest country on earth, and not a leftist where I make up my own reality in my convoluted mind.  That and I'm intelligent enough not to have to break up posts to answer them.


----------



## otto105

Ray From Cleveland said:


> What makes you think they knew what room he was in until he responded to the call WHEN THEY WERE IN THE HOUSE?????


Because reports stated the officers observed him thru a window before entering the house. 

It's why they pulled their guns and entered.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

otto105 said:


> Because reports stated the officers observed him thru a window before entering the house.
> 
> It's why they pulled their guns and entered.



Where are these reports at?  All the OP has is the story, a recording of the police dispatch, and the body cam of the leading officer that was the first one on the call.


----------



## otto105

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Where are these reports at?  All the OP has is the story, a recording of the police dispatch, and the body cam of the leading officer that was the first one on the call.


ray, I live in Madison WI. This was in our media and I have heard a lot more than you have about it.

And you would be wrong about reason for the police to enter. When they arrived at house they observed that the guy had moved from the patio. They stated, "are you coming out now" then found him in a bedroom by LOOOKING from outside thru the window. They pulled their guns and entered without any announcement.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> At times when I pray, I thank God for being born into a good family, in the greatest country on earth, and not a leftist where I make up my own reality in my convoluted mind.



When I pray, I give thanks to C'Thulhu that I don't live in a slum.
That I don't scam the government to get disability
That I don't live next to people who I hate and hate me in return
That I am not a flaming hypocrite who collects government money while complaining about his neighbors who get government money. 
That my life hasn't been reduced to listening to a police scanner muttering about crime. (Then again, I can afford streaming!)  
And that I recongize that only deluded poor white people who keep voting republican are kind of... stupid. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> That and I'm intelligent enough not to have to break up posts to answer them.


Well, yes, then you should probably limited yourself to saying only one or two asspoundingly dumb things in a post...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> When I pray, I give thanks to C'Thulhu that I don't live in a slum.
> That I don't scam the government to get disability
> That I don't live next to people who I hate and hate me in return
> That I am not a flaming hypocrite who collects government money while complaining about his neighbors who get government money.
> That my life hasn't been reduced to listening to a police scanner muttering about crime. (Then again, I can afford streaming!)
> And that I recongize that only deluded poor white people who keep voting republican are kind of... stupid.



Why don't you start praying that you don't lie 90% of the time here and get the balls to see a shrink like a man about your problems?



JoeB131 said:


> Well, yes, then you should probably limited yourself to saying only one or two asspoundingly dumb things in a post...



At least my posts are factual and not shit I make up in my head.  I provide facts and evidence of my claims; something you can't do.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

otto105 said:


> ray, I live in Madison WI. This was in our media and I have heard a lot more than you have about it.
> 
> And you would be wrong about reason for the police to enter. When they arrived at house they observed that the guy had moved from the patio. They stated, "are you coming out now" then found him in a bedroom by LOOOKING from outside thru the window. They pulled their guns and entered without any announcement.



So you can't backup your claim, that's all you had to say.  The neighbor who called the cops said he was on the porch, not the police.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Why don't you start praying that you don't lie 90% of the time here and get the balls to see a shrink like a man about your problems?



Again, I'd compare my life to yours any day of the week, and I'd know I'd come off better.   The sad thing, you keep supporting the people who screwed you.  





Ray From Cleveland said:


> At least my posts are factual and not shit I make up in my head. I provide facts and evidence of my claims; something you can't do.


Whackadoodle Copaganda links aren't "proof", buddy. 

There is no cop shortage.  In fact, since 2013, we've had a 11% increase in the number of full time officers.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Again, I'd compare my life to yours any day of the week, and I'd know I'd come off better.   The sad thing, you keep supporting the people who screwed you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whackadoodle Copaganda links aren't "proof", buddy.
> 
> There is no cop shortage.  In fact, since 2013, we've had a 11% increase in the number of full time officers.
> 
> View attachment 605626



Yeah, the population grew so much but we have less cops since GW left office.  Brilliant.  ABC and the DOJ say your graph is full of shit.  

*WASHINGTON (SBG) — The decline of the number of police officers in the United States predates renewed scrutiny on police in the past year, according to Department of Justice data.

Between 1997 and 2013, the number of full-time sworn officers consistently increased. Between 2013 and 2016, that number dropped by more than 23,000 officers, according to the department's Bureau of Justice Statistics. According to a survey out last year by the National Police Foundation, 86% of departments reported a staffing shortage.

A lack of political and law enforcement leadership, misinformation about the meaning of "defund the police," dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system, and anti-police sentiment are also contributing to the staffing shortage, according to Ret. Chief Brendan Cox, who served with the Albany Police Department for more than 20 years and now works as the director of policing strategies for Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) National Support Bureau.*









						Police officer shortage part of 8-year nationwide trend
					

WASHINGTON (SBG) — The decline of the number of police officers in the United States predates renewed scrutiny on police in the past year, according to Department of Justice data.  Between 1997 and 2013, the number of full-time sworn officers consistently increased. Between 2013 and 2016, that...




					wjla.com
				




So you can't bitch about the sources either.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So you can't bitch about the sources either.



Sure I can... The number of cops increased since 2013 to 2020.   

We don't need more cops... we need more cops who know what they are doing. 

For instance, Chicago spends 1.6 BILLION to keep 13,000 cops on duty. 

And it spends 113 MILLION a year settling police misconduct claims.  

The problem isn't the number of cops, it's the amount of police misconduct.


----------



## struth

Ray From Cleveland said:


> And your point is??????


i think the point is, that the door was not wide open as the person he quoted said


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Sure I can... The number of cops increased since 2013 to 2020.
> 
> We don't need more cops... we need more cops who know what they are doing.
> 
> For instance, Chicago spends 1.6 BILLION to keep 13,000 cops on duty.
> 
> And it spends 113 MILLION a year settling police misconduct claims.
> 
> The problem isn't the number of cops, it's the amount of police misconduct.



The survey was not conducted by Breibart or Fox, it was conducted by ABC so you can't bitch.  That's besides what's going on in my suburb plus the town one of my closest friends son works in about 50 miles outside of the city.  It's happening whether you agree with it or not.  Given my friends son trains all the new recruits, his claim is that they are getting the lowest quality of applicants and it's making his job very difficult.

The problem with our legal system is money, not cops.  Somebody makes a claim for a few thousand or even a hundred thousand bucks and the city gives in, just like all these famous entertainers.  It's cheaper just to pay them off.  While that may be true, it also influences more lowlifes to try and cash in on that money cow.  Since you love the Rice case so much, it's a perfect example.  A justified police shooting because some idiot pulled out a realistic gun on a police officer, and they handed his fat pig mother 5 million bucks because she was too irresponsible to watch her own little hoodlum kid.  That's the problem.  It's not the Mayor's money, it's the taxpayers money.  You anti-cop people created this problem and then bitch you can't get good quality cops. 

The solution to all these ambulance chaser problems is a loser pays all law.  Sue anybody you like, but if you lose the case, you are responsible for reimbursement of all the costs of the person or entity you tried to sue.  Then you'd see how little your city would be paying out in claims, plus it would stop all these women from coming out of the woodwork with their phony claims against wealthy famous people. 

Of course that will never happen in this country given most of our representatives were lawyers and they take care of their own.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

struth said:


> i think the point is, that the door was not wide open as the person he quoted said



Unlocked, open, not much of a difference if it was a real burglar or squatter inside that home.  The police didn't need to bust down the door, they just walked right in.


----------



## struth

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Unlocked, open, not much of a difference if it was a real burglar or squatter inside that home.  The police didn't need to bust down the door, they just walked right in.


yes there is a huge difference 

and there wasn’t a burglar, so…

police have no right just to bust down someone’s door.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

struth said:


> yes there is a huge difference
> 
> and there wasn’t a burglar, so…
> 
> police have no right just to bust down someone’s door.



Actually they do depending on the circumstance.  I know they do it during welfare checks when a family member swears somebody is home but perhaps needs help like a diabetic or a person with a heart condition.  Also perhaps if an officer sees a broken window in which a person gained illegal entry.


----------



## struth

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Actually they do depending on the circumstance.  I know they do it during welfare checks when a family member swears somebody is home but perhaps needs help like a diabetic or a person with a heart condition.  Also perhaps if an officer sees a broken window in which a person gained illegal entry.


Sure under certain circumstances, but they don't have the right to go around and do it. 

This wasn't a case where a family member did that.


----------



## Delldude

pknopp said:


> Violating one's civil rights doesn't become acceptable just because they didn't beat him.


But it's ok with anyone involved on January 6th....


----------



## pknopp

Delldude said:


> But it's ok with anyone involved on January 6th....



 What is?


----------



## Delldude

pknopp said:


> What is?





> * pknopp said: *
> Violating one's civil rights doesn't become acceptable just because they didn't beat him.


----------



## pknopp

There are two points there. I was not aware of anyone having their civil rights violated so? Can you be more specific?


----------



## Delldude

pknopp said:


> There are two points there. I was not aware of anyone having their civil rights violated so? Can you be more specific?


Your comment in post #3 to White 6 makes it clear you were commenting on violating someones civil rights having happened.


----------



## pknopp

Delldude said:


> Your comment in post #3 to White 6 makes it clear you were commenting on violating someones civil rights having happened.



 OK, and when did that happen on 1/6?


----------



## Delldude

pknopp said:


> OK, and when did that happen on 1/6?


You must not be following the DOJ handling of 1/6.


----------



## pknopp

Delldude said:


> You must not be following the DOJ handling of 1/6.



 Nor you as you can not answer.


----------



## Delldude

pknopp said:


> Nor you as you can not answer.


Several instances where detainees Cotus rights are or have been violated, 6A for one.


----------



## pknopp

Delldude said:


> Several instances where detainees Cotus rights are or have been violated, 6A for one.



 So you say?


----------



## Delldude

pknopp said:


> So you say?





> _Violating one's civil rights doesn't become acceptable_ just because they didn't beat him.



How's 6A working out?


----------



## pknopp

Delldude said:


> How's 6A working out?



 So we will go with the idea that you were just blowing smoke.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

struth said:


> Sure under certain circumstances, but they don't have the right to go around and do it.
> 
> This wasn't a case where a family member did that.



No it wasn't, but I was just giving examples.  

The defense lawyer in the video clearly pointed out where police can use reasonable suspicion and when they cannot.  Simply put they can't use reasonable suspicion on a hunch or a feeling something is wrong, but otherwise if they have some sort of evidence to believe a search is necessary, or as this defense attorney put it, articulable facts, they have the right to move forward with a search.  

In this case they got a complaint about a man who was occupying a vacant house. 
When they went to investigate, the occupant inside didn't respond to their calls, but they heard somebody inside the home. 
He didn't respond until they were inside of the residence and they had no idea who he was. 
They put him in cuffs until they could straighten out the situation to figure out what's what and who is who.  
After the other officer informed them another neighbor said he's been there for a while, they immediately took the cuffs off and advised him to contact his landlord about informing the neighbors of his temporary occupation in the home.  

It was all perfectly legal so this judge is off base in his decision.


----------



## struth

Ray From Cleveland said:


> No it wasn't, but I was just giving examples.
> 
> The defense lawyer in the video clearly pointed out where police can use reasonable suspicion and when they cannot.  Simply put they can't use reasonable suspicion on a hunch or a feeling something is wrong, but otherwise if they have some sort of evidence to believe a search is necessary, or as this defense attorney put it, articulable facts, they have the right to move forward with a search.
> 
> In this case they got a complaint about a man who was occupying a vacant house.
> When they went to investigate, the occupant inside didn't respond to their calls, but they heard somebody inside the home.
> He didn't respond until they were inside of the residence and they had no idea who he was.
> They put him in cuffs until they could straighten out the situation to figure out what's what and who is who.
> After the other officer informed them another neighbor said he's been there for a while, they immediately took the cuffs off and advised him to contact his landlord about informing the neighbors of his temporary occupation in the home.
> 
> It was all perfectly legal so this judge is off base in his decision.


I know what RAS is.  

There was no need to handcuff him.  There was nothing illegal going on.  The Judge was right, that they can't use their immunity from being sued here for clearly violating his rights.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

struth said:


> I know what RAS is.
> 
> There was no need to handcuff him.  There was nothing illegal going on.  The Judge was right, that they can't use their immunity from being sued here for clearly violating his rights.



What right do you have to not being handcuffed?  It's called detainment and police do it all the time.


----------



## struth

Ray From Cleveland said:


> What right do you have to not being handcuffed?  It's called detainment and police do it all the time.


what? what right do i have to my liberty and being free from the govt coming into my home and cuffing me?  seriously stalin?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

struth said:


> what? what right do i have to my liberty and being free from the govt coming into my home and cuffing me?  seriously stalin?



It wasn't his home, he was staying there.  It was not his house or apartment.  There was a complaint called in by a neighbor and police suspected he was a robber or squatter.  That's what gave them the right to detain the subject.  

When Can an Officer Detain Someone?​
In order to justify a detention, an officer must be able to articulate specific facts that lead to a *reasonable suspicion* that the suspect is involved in criminal activity.

A detention is not an arrest, and requires less evidence than the probable cause standard for an arrest.









						When Can a Police Officer Arrest or Detain You?
					

The police can arrest or detain you only if they meet constitutionally mandated standards. Those standards are probable cause and reasonable suspicion.




					jmarshlaw.com


----------



## struth

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It wasn't his home, he was staying there.  It was not his house or apartment.  There was a complaint called in by a neighbor and police suspected he was a robber or squatter.  That's what gave them the right to detain the subject.
> 
> When Can an Officer Detain Someone?​
> In order to justify a detention, an officer must be able to articulate specific facts that lead to a *reasonable suspicion* that the suspect is involved in criminal activity.
> 
> A detention is not an arrest, and requires less evidence than the probable cause standard for an arrest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Can a Police Officer Arrest or Detain You?
> 
> 
> The police can arrest or detain you only if they meet constitutionally mandated standards. Those standards are probable cause and reasonable suspicion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jmarshlaw.com


he was staying there…the govt doesn’t have a right to come into a place i am staying ans handcuff me…same difference


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The survey was not conducted by Breibart or Fox, it was conducted by ABC so you can't bitch.


Actually, I bothered to read your silly article.. and it clearly says the reason why less people are going into LE is because the profession has been given such a bad rep by the bad actors.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> That's besides what's going on in my suburb plus the town one of my closest friends son works in about 50 miles outside of the city. It's happening whether you agree with it or not. Given my friends son trains all the new recruits, his claim is that they are getting the lowest quality of applicants and it's making his job very difficult.



Again, it's a job paying north of 80K a year for no experience, and a lifetime pension when you retire after 20, people should be climbing over each other to get those jobs. 

Now, I think most cops are great guys.  Most cops aren't racist abusers, but they make excuses for the ones who are.   Just like most Catholic Priests aren't pedophiles, but they covered up for the ones who were for years.    You reap what you sow.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> The problem with our legal system is money, not cops. Somebody makes a claim for a few thousand or even a hundred thousand bucks and the city gives in, just like all these famous entertainers. It's cheaper just to pay them off. While that may be true, it also influences more lowlifes to try and cash in on that money cow.



Or not.   Again the city has lawyers on retainer, who specialize in arguing these kinds of cases.  If they settled a case, it was because they knew they were in deep shit if it got in front of a jury where everyone has had at least one DWB.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Since you love the Rice case so much, it's a perfect example. A justified police shooting because some idiot pulled out a realistic gun on a police officer, and they handed his fat pig mother 5 million bucks because she was too irresponsible to watch her own little hoodlum kid. That's the problem. It's not the Mayor's money, it's the taxpayers money. You anti-cop people created this problem and then bitch you can't get good quality cops.



Uh, dude, I went to the part to play when I was 12, and my mother didn't feel a need to watch me, either.  She also had a reasonable expectation that as corrupt as Chicago cops are, they weren't going to shoot me. 

The reason why they settled is because they knew the MINUTE they introduced Loehmann's history at his last job (where they were going to fire him for being emotionally unstable.), the negligence of the Cleveland PD would have been laid out to bear. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> The solution to all these ambulance chaser problems is a loser pays all law. Sue anybody you like, but if you lose the case, you are responsible for reimbursement of all the costs of the person or entity you tried to sue. Then you'd see how little your city would be paying out in claims, plus it would stop all these women from coming out of the woodwork with their phony claims against wealthy famous people.



That would be a good way to deprive average working people of any recourse to law.   You might as well give rich people hunting licenses to shoot down working class people. 





Ray From Cleveland said:


> Of course that will never happen in this country given most of our representatives were lawyers and they take care of their own.



It is interesting who the right wing has been trained to hate. 

Lawyers, Unions, and Government Officials. 

Anyone who might make the playing field more level between the working class and the investor class.


----------



## Delldude

pknopp said:


> So we will go with the idea that you were just blowing smoke.


Can't answer the question then?


----------



## pknopp

Delldude said:


> Can't answer the question then?



 I was asked to show which 1/6 arrestee's were not granted their rights. There were none so I can not do that.

 If you still believe there was, it's up to you do show that.


----------



## Delldude

pknopp said:


> I was asked to show which 1/6 arrestee's were not granted their rights. There were none so I can not do that.
> 
> If you still believe there was, it's up to you do show that.


No you weren't, I never asked you 'which' were or weren't granted their rights. 

Like I said, '"How's 6A working out?"


----------



## pknopp

Delldude said:


> No you weren't, I never asked you 'which' were or weren't granted their rights.
> 
> Like I said, '"How's 6A working out?"



 No idea what you are asking.


----------



## Delldude

pknopp said:


> No idea what you are asking.


Sixth amendment......6A.....


----------



## pknopp

Delldude said:


> Sixth amendment......6A.....



Asking the same question over again does not change my answer.

 All have been afforded their rights. If you disagree it's up to you to show that.


----------



## Delldude

pknopp said:


> Asking the same question over again does not change my answer.
> 
> All have been afforded their rights. If you disagree it's up to you to show that.



Looks like you are wrong.



> No reasonable person holds any brief for anyone who took part in the January 6th riot. Just the opposite. But that doesn’t mean the rioters shouldn’t get due process, as should every single American.
> 
> If the January 6th rioters are guilty, then properly prove it in a court of law with the tools the law provides. Denying them due process and violating their civil rights only proves some of their points on our system of government.


January 6th Defendants Deserve Due Process



> *Feb 10, 2022  *
> As the author or co-sponsor of more than two dozen criminal justice reform bills, I have a long history of working with Democrats to correct injustice in our system, especially as it pertains to those accused of non-violent crimes such as drug possession.
> The right to due process, enshrined in the Constitution, includes the right to a speedy trial by a jury of one’s peers. Those denied bail or unable to afford it can often be incarcerated for months awaiting trial, during which time they often lose their jobs, face eviction, and have their lives spiral downward -- all before ever being convicted of a crime.





> I would add today that the Sixth Amendment should apply regardless of your political persuasion. It is disappointing that progressives today will not apply the same equal justice under the law to the people accused of entering the U.S. Capitol illegally on Jan. 6, 2021.





> I worked with Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., to legislatively end solitary confinement for juveniles. I applauded President Obama when he stepped in to stop this cruelty. It disturbs me that the outrage from the left seems to be selective. Where is the ACLU when it comes to the prolonged and inhumane solitary detentions of people accused of crimes on Jan. 6, especially for those who are accused of no violence?
> 
> A federal judge stepped in to confirm the abusive jail conditions and yet those on the left fail to lift a finger or pen a word to condemn this injustice. Their hypocrisy indicates that either they hate these people so much that they now refuse to acknowledge the injustice of prolonged incarceration without trial, or they simply don’t care because these citizens are supporters of Donald Trump. Many on the right also sit silently in fear of being accused of supporting violence.
> 
> I condemned all violent acts on Jan. 6 and continue to do so.  But that does not mean we should destroy the lives of non-violent protesters by deliberately conflating them with the acts of others, denying them bail, and incarcerating them for nearly a year with no trial. That is not justice. Our laws demand that even those accused of the most horrific crimes of mass murder are guaranteed due process. To abandon those principles for political purposes is to abandon the very bedrock of American jurisprudence.


Fox News Op-Ed: Dr. Rand Paul: "All Americans — including those arrested in the Jan. 6 riots — deserve due process" | Senator Rand Paul


----------



## pknopp

They all have received due process.

 Just because you didn't get bail doesn't mean you didn't get your day in court. Just the opposite.


----------



## Delldude

pknopp said:


> They all have received due process.
> 
> Just because you didn't get bail doesn't mean you didn't get your day in court. Just the opposite.


 
The actions of the DOJ are excessive, especially for the level of 'crimes' many have been charged with.


----------



## pknopp

Delldude said:


> The actions of the DOJ are excessive, especially for the level of 'crimes' many have been charged with.



 Argue that If you wish. I believe many sentences are excessive. Anyone in jail because of pot would fall into that category.


----------



## Delldude

pknopp said:


> Argue that If you wish. I believe many sentences are excessive. Anyone in jail because of pot would fall into that category.


True. That and current bail issues for excessively violent offenders being let go.

US attorneys have wide latitude in charging someone. Several rulings were made on the issue of charges and detaining, specifically regarding Jan 6th . Wording is the key, if the detainee is a threat to the community. Tweek the charge and bingo.


----------



## woodwork201

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Not at all, I'm pro-police but that doesn't make me an authoritarian.  I just believe as we keep weakening our police departments we end up with more problems.  A 30% increase in violent crime between 2020 and 2021 is a pretty good indicator.  And as I mentioned already we have a growing problem of getting new police recruits.  The problem is not just in my city but nationwide.  It was not that long ago when a position for a police officer came up in any city, hundreds of mostly males took the test to see if they could get the job.  It was a glory position to be a police officer.  Now putting on a cops uniform automatically comes with a target on the back.



Do you believe police can do no wrong?  What if American police were arresting peaceful protesters like in Canada?  Are the Canadian police wrong?  I'm trying to establish whether there are any limits at all to your support of the police or do you believe the police are always right because they are the police.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The survey was not conducted by Breibart or Fox, it was conducted by ABC so you can't bitch.  That's besides what's going on in my suburb plus the town one of my closest friends son works in about 50 miles outside of the city.  It's happening whether you agree with it or not.  Given my friends son trains all the new recruits, his claim is that they are getting the lowest quality of applicants and it's making his job very difficult.
> 
> The problem with our legal system is money, not cops.  Somebody makes a claim for a few thousand or even a hundred thousand bucks and the city gives in, just like all these famous entertainers.  It's cheaper just to pay them off.  While that may be true, it also influences more lowlifes to try and cash in on that money cow.  Since you love the Rice case so much, it's a perfect example.  A justified police shooting because some idiot pulled out a realistic gun on a police officer, and they handed his fat pig mother 5 million bucks because she was too irresponsible to watch her own little hoodlum kid.  That's the problem.  It's not the Mayor's money, it's the taxpayers money.  You anti-cop people created this problem and then bitch you can't get good quality cops.
> 
> The solution to all these ambulance chaser problems is a loser pays all law.  Sue anybody you like, but if you lose the case, you are responsible for reimbursement of all the costs of the person or entity you tried to sue.  Then you'd see how little your city would be paying out in claims, plus it would stop all these women from coming out of the woodwork with their phony claims against wealthy famous people.
> 
> Of course that will never happen in this country given most of our representatives were lawyers and they take care of their own.


The solution is to eliminate qualified immunity, and take misconduct awards from the police pension fund.


----------



## Jarlaxle

pknopp said:


> They all have received due process.
> 
> Just because you didn't get bail doesn't mean you didn't get your day in court. Just the opposite.


Look, we get it: you're absolutely fine with ignoring civil rights, as long as the "right" people are being abused.


----------



## pknopp

Jarlaxle said:


> Look, we get it: you're absolutely fine with ignoring civil rights, as long as the "right" people are being abused.



 As soon as you provide even one actual example of someone who has had their rights violated, we can discuss it. Not getting bail is not a violation of one's rights.


----------



## whoisit

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The judge is in the wrong.  Police do have that right, it's called reasonable suspicion.  This guy didn't live there previously and criminals often target homes of the deceased.  When my neighbor passed away from lung cancer somebody broke into her home and stole all the copper pipes.
> 
> In any case they had a testimony from a neighbor that a stranger was in the house that shouldn't be there.



If he had of been there to rob or kill then a suit would have been filed the cops didn't do enough.
No way would I be a cop today. I do agree there are some bad cops but not so much as they want us to believe.


----------



## whoisit

Jarlaxle said:


> Look, we get it: you're absolutely fine with ignoring civil rights, as long as the "right" people are being abused.



According to facts so far the 'right' people are under suspicion.
Who is doing most of the looting,robbing and killing? That is who you want to go after,right? I do think mostly white ANTIFA and democrats are the main ones behind it all but the blacks have to take responsibility for listening to them. Dems will keep you on the democrat plantation long as your willing.Dems stay in power get richer off you and you keep voting for them while they replace you with foreigners.
Thank goodness some of you are leaving but it may be too late for your nation to be saved now.
 Just like if a KKK fool burns a cross on the lawn who will they look for a black man,no they will look for the KKK white man.
 So far I don't see much positivity from the freedom given to the black race. And that is a shame.


----------



## Jarlaxle

pknopp said:


> As soon as you provide even one actual example of someone who has had their rights violated, we can discuss it. Not getting bail is not a violation of one's rights.


Right to a speedy and public trial. 2 years is not "speedy".


----------



## pknopp

Jarlaxle said:


> Right to a speedy and public trial. 2 years is not "speedy".



 It's not been 2 years and it's up to the defendant to demand his right here. Do you have an example where that has happened?


----------



## woodwork201

pknopp said:


> As soon as you provide even one actual example of someone who has had their rights violated, we can discuss it. Not getting bail is not a violation of one's rights.


You're kidding, right?  because we could easily provide documented cases of people's rights being violated and keep providing them all day long for days.


----------



## pknopp

woodwork201 said:


> You're kidding, right?  because we could easily provide documented cases of people's rights being violated and keep providing them all day long for days.



 One can provide hundreds of cases where people have their rights violated. I post them quite regularly.


----------

