- Joined
- Feb 14, 2019
- Messages
- 10,877
- Reaction score
- 2,208
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Yeah...
That needs to change.
Why does it need to change? It's absolutely practical.
Yeah...
That needs to change.
Idiotic reply.
Yeah watch him go in the fromt pretending to be moving in then sneaking away out the back to get away. You would not make a very good cop.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Imagine if your a crook robbing a home. You see headlights coming down the street so you change direction from walking from the the house to the van, to the opposite, from the can toward the house. Making it appear that your unloading the van.
You see its a cop observing your activities so you calmy enter the home through the front door as if your moving in. Then while the cop is sitting outside waiting to see if your gonna come out for the next item out of the van, you sneak out the backdoor and get away.
Congradulations to that cops steller police work. Crook got away but whats really important was accomplished. Nobody inconveinced a black man acting suspiciouly and we suceeded in not feeding his persecution paranoia. After all thats way more important than getting criminals off the street.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
So, is it your position that the police should detain and question ANYONE that they see going into their own house?
The question of 'probable cause' needs looking into. If there wasn't enough probable cause to cuff the guy, sounds like assault to me.
Wrap the thread, we have the correct answer.
(Though I would add that handcuffing those who are not under arrest is often unacceptable, and that this now commonplace procedure needs to change.)
Police are just doing their job with caution. It was a judgment call that's all.
The minute that a person is handcuffed (well, by the police, at any rate - those other times we don't talk about on a family-friendly forum) they ARE "under arrest" REGARDLESS of the utterance of some "magic words".
His avatar says chit-town, not Chicago.
The minute that a person is handcuffed (well, by the police, at any rate - those other times we don't talk about on a family-friendly forum) they ARE "under arrest" REGARDLESS of the utterance of some "magic words".
Placing them in handcuffs is to secure the scene, nothing more nothing less
Actually handcuffing someone is ARRESTING them.
On the other hand, I suppose that your position would support handcuffing someone if the police officer saw them about to enter a car that was parked at an expired parking meter, because the police officer was "only securing the scene". And, of course, the same would apply to jaywalking or littering.
He told them the paperwork was in the house, but I don't know that he gave them permission to enter his house.
And if they did so without his permission what is their legal justification for doing so?
My personal white guy opinion is that in general America's police have become too militarized. As a result minorities knew it first and feel it more.
... When it walks and quacks like a duck......
I would want them, at 4am, when this happened, to at least VERIFY that it's the person's house....I've moved a lot in my life, I've never moved at 4am,
And again, how do the police KNOW whose house it is?
So, your position is that if I am coming home at 0400 the police should handcuff me and require that I provide proof that I live in the house with the garage door that I have just opened with my remote?
I mean, I might have stolen the remote and putting my car into the garage would allow me to load it up with booty completely free of observation - wouldn't it?
How about 0300? Or maybe 0200? What about 0100? Is midnight OK? Hey, it's pretty dark at 2300. And who would be going into a house at 1500 except some burglar?
I'm sorry, but I must reject your contention that the police have, at any time of the day or night, the absolute right to arrest (which is what happens the minute they put handcuffs on) me, or even to detain me simply because the police officer feels like doing so. Possibly that is YOUR definition of "The Land of the Free", but it sure isn't mine.
I had a similar situation a few years back. I left the house with the family to go to a nearby restaurant. For some reason, the burglar alarm went off while we were at the restaurant. The alarm company called me on my cell phone and informed me that the alarm was tripped. They also notified the police. I returned to the house before the police arrived. My search revealed no break-in.
I was in the process of resetting the alarm when the police arrived.
They didn't handcuff me. They simply asked me a few routine questions and they wanted to see some I.D. showing this was my address.
The police were cautious, courteous, and professional. But then, I'm white.
No they aren't....cmon man....be honest.
You are simply factually WRONG.
Arrest vs. Detention: How to Tell Whether You’ve Been Arrested or Simply Detained | Nolo
Try again.
Why does it need to change? It's absolutely practical.
First of all, YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THE HANDCUFFS, Educate yourself on that please.
Second of all, again, HOW are the police supposed to AUTOMATICALLY KNOW (which is what you seem to want to happen) whose house it is?
Actually handcuffing someone is ARRESTING them.
On the other hand, I suppose that your position would support handcuffing someone if the police officer saw them about to enter a car that was parked at an expired parking meter, because the police officer was "only securing the scene". And, of course, the same would apply to jaywalking or littering.