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

[Ray From Cleveland]

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]

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]

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

You have no point.

 

[Colin norris]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

So when an appeals judge overturns the ruling, are you going to say "end of story" again?

And when it doesn't happen....

 

[woodwork201]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.