With friends like these…….

Yep, that’s what separates us from Afghanistan, lawyers.

“First if it was a hostage situation the cops would not rush in with a no-knock warrant. They would be outside with lights rolling, and bull horn blaring, because they only rush into known non-violent situations. If this statement is not true, please show me when it was different.”

Yup, that’s the rule. They almost always wait for the perp to get tired of killin’ and shoot himself before rolling in. It was this way even back in the day… remember the San Ysidro mass murders at Mc Donalds in 1984? The police stood outside with their thumbs up their butts for an hour before finally ending it via Sniper shot.

I think there’s some of that mixed with the idea of arresting people so they’ll wind up taking a plea and lose their ability to sue.”

I think it’s more freudian than that.

“If he started yelling at the police from his yard, that could have an effect on their operation in some cases. I doubt that would apply here, but if there were a hostage situation, and he started yelling “hey you motherfucking pigs what are you doing in his yard” as they try to sneak around back of his neighbor’s yard to attack him from the rear, he should absolutely be charged with obstruction of justice if there is any impact from his actions. In fact, if any of the hostages die he should be civilly liable on top of that too.”

I still have to disagree with this, as you state it.

Lets look at this from what we see daily on this site.

First if it was a hostage situation the cops would not rush in with a no-knock warrant. They would be outside with lights rolling, and bull horn blaring, because they only rush into known non-violent situations. If this statement is not true, please show me when it was different.

Second the cops could always say that it effected their operations any time you asked the muthafukin pigs what they were doing.

Third if he was yelling at them to find out what they were doing in his neighbors yard, he evidently did not know why they were there, and he probably did not know they were police, because they try to hide that fact for some reason.

Fourth nothing here would suggest intent on his part, and yes intent may not be needed, but it is important. Lets look at it this way he yelled (not knowing about the hostages), and it warned a criminal, and the criminal kills his hostage. By your reasoning the person that yelled should be liable (at least civilly). Now lets say someone driving down the road suddenly sees this guy dressed in all black, masked, carrying a weapon designed to kill on the battlefield jump in front of him. He honks his horn at the man (not knowing it was a cop) this warns the hostage taker, who then kills his hostage. Would we hold the driver responsible also? The only difference is one is in a car, and the other in his yard, but both have the same prior knowledge of the situation.

#23 Highway

I also wonder if a reason the story’s so light on details is because that TV station wants to cover the cops’ butts. Don’t want to be hard on them, because they might harass you, or they might not give you the access you want on another story. So let’s just mention that the guy had a few beers, leave a bunch of stuff unsaid, and not look hard at the actions of the police.

I have often wondered about this as well. Covering news costs money. The easier the city makes it for the local news organization, the less it costs. I think the days of serious local investigative journalism are over. Now, it’s “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”. Unless a cops gets indicted, the local news almost always sides with the cops. If there’s potential misconduct involved, the local news will give it minimal attention and drop it completely soon after. They just don’t want to alienate the cops and risk having that spigot turned off. There are exceptions, but not nearly enough.

First, he wasn’t doing anything, telling him once then ignoring him unless he comes over to the ‘crime scene’ would have been enough.

Second, play the tape for me. When I hear the tape of the cops clearly telling him to stay away 5 times I’ll believe it. Until then, I assume the cops are lying.

Cops are not morally righteous people with well defined moral compasses, they’re part of the “Brotherhood of Blue” that will always side with other cops.

Part of the ‘kool aid’ they drink is the constant reaffirmation that they ‘put their lives on the line for you every day’ such that you OWE them for being the ‘righteous martyrs’ that they think they are.

This guy challenged that perceived debt simply by yelling out his back door, and as such, directly challenged the artificially constructed self image of ‘righteous defender of the people’.

That’s my take, anyway… bear in mind I don’t have any more info about this case than any of you, I’m just trying to get into the ‘mind’ of the police to try to figure out why they do what they do and make sense of the contradictory statements they make.

3. How can he obstruct from his home, when they were next door? Mouthing off is still free speech, and not obstruction.

If he started yelling at the police from his yard, that could have an effect on their operation in some cases. I doubt that would apply here, but if there were a hostage situation, and he started yelling “hey you motherfucking pigs what are you doing in his yard” as they try to sneak around back of his neighbor’s yard to attack him from the rear, he should absolutely be charged with obstruction of justice if there is any impact from his actions. In fact, if any of the hostages die he should be civilly liable on top of that too.

I’m guessing that you’ve never actually been part of the military, then.

No, but overall the US military has accomplished its mission to defend the US and its interests successfully. It’s far from perfect on a day-to-day mission, but it’s hardly the institutional f#$% up that many law enforcement agencies are.

There are ways to achieve spending parity between prosecutor and defense legal teams without increasing your taxes.

I am not taking a position on whether the criminal justice pie should be bigger or smaller. All I am saying is: (i) it is not the fault of lawyers that it is split so unevenly; and (ii) it needs to be split more evenly.

I think there’s some of that mixed with the idea of arresting people so they’ll wind up taking a plea and lose their ability to sue.

The video story says that he went into his house, heard his gate rattle, stuck his head out and asked what they were doing and then the cops popped his screen door into his dead and brought him to the floor. They then dragged him handcuffed back to his neighbor’s house and threw him in with the rest of the handcuffed guys.

The cops say they told him to go back in his house 5 times. I can’t figure out what would give them the authority to force him back in his house.

And, I take issue with this. The problem is not that the state doesn’t take enough money from me.

Certainly, lawyers are NOT the problem. Lawyers are a libertarian’s best friend as they are integral in the true rule of law and in ensuring responsibility/liability.

@ DaveK
Yes. Question a cop and you will be arrested.

Court cases don’t magically appear when we litigators press our secret rings together like the Wonder Twins. (“Take form of …. breach of contract dispute!!!!”) People sue each other’s asses and we are the taxis that take them to that duel. If there is a dispute about a “simple word” it’s because there was enough uncertainty in the wording that would permit such a debate.

“I hate to be on the side of the POlice, but what happened after he heard the gate rattle? Did he charge after them guns ablazin? It just seems like an important part of that whole story is missing between “gate rattle” and “detectives beat him up”.”

Yes I agree there is something missing.

1. Warrant to enter his home, and yes when they opened his gate they entered his curtilage (that is his home).

2. Three crimes he was charged with, one was obstruction, what were the other two?

3. How can he obstruct from his home, when they were next door? Mouthing off is still free speech, and not obstruction.

4. Probable cause to use exigent circumstances to enter his home. I saw nothing about evidence destruction, life or limb situation within the home, hot pursuit, or maybe his home was on fire.