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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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]

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]

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]

‘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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.