Wrong address, and another innocent American dies
- Thread starter SPM
- Start date
- Replies 366
- Views 14,685
Not to be an ass, but the news will care. Not so much about the warrant service, but the consequences of not showing the legal document by which they intend to inflict harm, kidnap me, or lock me in a cage.
The dead guy probably slapped the trailer.....
georgel
Behind Every Blade of Grass
Charter Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Soon, the officer's will bring an iPad with a warrant app. Better yet, a warrant will be texted to your phone at about the same time you hear a loud knock on the door.
ATTENTION!
You are being served!
Please remain calm. Place you hands on you head and kneal as the entry team breaches the door.
Please see attached warrant information.
Have a nice day.
ATTENTION!
You are being served!
Please remain calm. Place you hands on you head and kneal as the entry team breaches the door.
Please see attached warrant information.
Have a nice day.
Last edited:
Yeah. I know and I hate that kjdna, bit I was more meaning the information be it paper or digital warrant, after all they had to get an address from somewhere as to where to go look for the guy. They didn't just randomly pick this house, at least I wouldn't think.
That is about how I pictured it going down. The being shot in the back of the head thru a door is alarming to me as to this issue.
No doubt and if it's enough of an issue a lot of officers will either show the person(the respectful person) their computer or allow them to call the magistrate to verify and some even have a printer in their car they can print from. So it's really a non issue. In this case all they really did was knock on the wrong door. That happens all the time and it was only 36 feet away not two miles.
In my mind the shooting is two separate events.
Last edited:
I like you had originally thought they had a search warrant and were doing a swat type entry. In fact the had an Order for arrest type warrant (not sure if that is the correct name for it) and wanted to pick him up in it. They did call for the Tate County Sheriff Dept for assistance in apprehending him. How that all went down and happens I don't know. Originally as many were I thought they had lined up in SWAT team tactics and had prepped and were ready to get this guy kinda style. But, like many have said details are still emerging and clearing some of that up. I agree with Cowboy on the fact that wrong address for a planned raid is a lot different than patrol looking to talk to you and rolling up next door by mistake.
Sometimes warrants are taken out by the public. In this case if an officer was the witness he would have done an on site arrest and a warrant would not be necessary. Therefore the warrant was most likely taken out by a victim. Victim's are notorious for not knowing the address of the suspect (a lot of the time they can't tell you their own address) and may have given a guesstimate as to the address. That will be evident when the warrant is reviewed.
Officer do not have to show anyone copies of arrest warrants, only have knowledge that they exist and are active.
There are 4 things an officer has to do to effect a proper arrest. (At least in NC)
1. Identify themselves as a law enforcement officer. (this element is satisfied if the officer is in a clearly recognizable uniform.)
2. Tell the defendant that they are under arrest.
3. Inform the defendant of the charges they have been arrested for. (I have a funny story about that if anyone wants to hear it.)
4. Transport the defendant without unnecessary delay to a judicial official to determine the conditions of release.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Huh....seems like guestimates and victims not knowing are certainly not within the letter or intent of the Constitutional requirements for warrants.
No doubt you'll quote all kinds of statute law that the government has written saying it and its agents can do what they want in the case of this warrant or that warrant - but both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights apply to the government and its underlings, not the People. As a negative liberties document it spells out the things the government cannot do and applies limits on its power.
No warrants shall issue is pretty definitive.
Particularly describing the place to be searched means the specific place in particular, not guestimates and close enoughs.
All that said - this thread has been particularly enlightening as to what the root cause of a lot of the mess between the People and those who ostensibly serve them stems is.
Last edited:
Your confusing search warrants for arrest warrants. Arrest warrants are for people not property. People can be anywhere and an address isn't necessary at all for an arrest warrant. What if the offender were homeless? would that mean he didn't have to answer for his crimes?
Last edited:
Boy that certainly presents a conundrum, as the qualifier "and" means both requirements should be satisfied. At least in the English language. Couple that with the "No warrants" part sounds like the Founders intended for no f*cking warrants to issue without satisfying the constitutional requirements subsequently laid out.
Or would mean either or.
This is how the English language works.
Sure makes a mess of things.
When a warrant for a person is issued it contains their name, address (If available), D.O.B. (or approximate age), Race and any other Identifying Data. How does that not describe the person to be seized?
Are you saying that in your utopia anyone can commit any crime as long as no one knows where you live?
No. But you particularly named the place as well and meet both requirements with the address.
If there is no place to be searched, stating so in warrant satisfies the requirements but no search can be conducted at that point, as the warrant took particular care to say so (in the case of your hypothetical homeless person).
I'm just saying the constitutional requirements are pretty blatantly obvious to apply to all warrants, and arrest warrants have no special consideration clause regardless of statute law.
I guess the same as the constitutional process that is afforded and followed in 99.9% of all warrants search or arrest.
******************edit don't cherry pick and take the entire wording not just the last half.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Last edited:
The facts presented thus far claim they had the correct t address thou if I read correctly? In the grand scheme of things they contacted the man at the wrong address and between what happened there and his death is a hazy mess. I know the autopsy will be a big piece of the puzzle but, if he was shot in the back of the head thru a door what would warrant that? Under what qualification would that be acceptable or justified? I am still hesitant to accept that the facts are being honest from both sides telling their stories.
Last edited:
I haven't seen anyone say the warrant had the correct address, only that the right guy lived over there. In fact, if you believe the family there wasn't a warrant.
As far as shooting through the door I have no idea why they would and am skeptical that it even happened. I choose not to try to defend hypothetical situations as they can not contain enough facts to get a real concept of what happened.
To my knowledge there is only one side of the story and until police make a statement thats's all we have to run with.
How many times have we been in this exact situation where the "witnesses tell one story only to have the facts disprove them later? Michael Brown anyone?
For a group that absolutely knows the media will run with any B S story that bleeds you are awfully willing to buy in to this one.
The media doesn't have to play up anything. A innocent man in his own home, doing no wrong before the popo knocked on the wrong door and shot said innocent man on his doorstep. Then said, oh my bad, well you shouldn't have had a gun to protect your family with. You should call the police if you need help.
'Nuff said, in your mind it is ok for law enforcement officers to have victims. I don't need to hear anything else.
Well that's just stupid. Safety of the victims of domestic violence not the officers. You have to read like, more than one post of mine to understand it.
Read all of your post throughout the thread you seem to want to make excuse after excuse as to why this is right, and why we should bow before the kings men. Pardon my misinterpretation of one statement.
lol whatever dude. Sounds like you need to reread the entire thread. I'm not making excuses for anything. By the way your tinfoil underoos are showing.
Your right, must be my reading comprehension that's off, that doesn't sound like you are justifying anything. And stop looking at my underoos!
Your right, must be my reading comprehension that's off, that doesn't sound like you are justifying anything. And stop looking at my underoos!
I'm not justifying. I'm explaining what I think happened. The question is not about the address but the actual shooting. If this had been a raid with swat it is only about the address IMO. But it wasn't so you have to factor in the evidence of the shooting alone which they have not announced and facts from the shooting. I'm not making excuses only a fool would not understand that. I'm giving a more than plausible explanation of the situation for others to better understand. But hey those that only want to see it burn only see flames.
Lol first stupid, now a fool, I don't think I'm the one that needs to relax cowboy
I haven't degraded to personal attacks yet.
Last edited:
Lol first stupid, now a fool, I don't think I'm the one that needs to relax cowboy
I'm relaxed brother. It just irritates me when I take the time to explain something in a reasonable way and I get called an agent of the king. If you keep an open mind about this and take a little more knowledge into the situation you might understand it better. Trust me I listen to SPM and Noway2 even though I don't agree that everything needs to burn.
Last edited:
Fair enough, its hard to read justification of part of an act knowing that the results of that "easy mistake" cost someone their life, that someone who could have been anyone on this board. If people want to put on blinders and try to convince themselves that there is not a problem with the culture of law enforcement in this country seeing themselves as some kind of "street soldier" that's fine. But I think it's obvious to anyone who is paying attention that it is an issue and that issue is becoming more serious. Some of the justifications for this kind of action seem like...
I'm not an LEO and I agree that there needs to be a change. But that doesn't mean everyone is bad. Even these simple mistakes are made by humans and the simple mistakes are the most often made.
Here is s version of the story even thou I do not like CNN, but the DA is giving a bit of an account from the PD side, even thou they decline to give a statement. He basically stated the warrant information had the correct address but the apD officers were confused by the mail boxes as to which home was which. They knocked on the door and the dog came out which they fired upon and then the male victim wouldn't put his gun down and was killed. Again I don't trust CNN that often but this is another report on it.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/26/us/mississippi-wrong-house-trnd/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/26/us/mississippi-wrong-house-trnd/index.html
I'm not an LEO and I agree that there needs to be a change. But that doesn't mean everyone is bad. Even these simple mistakes are made by humans and the simple mistakes are the most often made.
WTF is Rachel Maddow doing as your Avatar?
And for what it's worth, I don't want to see the whole thing burn. I pray we avoid it.
But I also see it as inevitable if things remain in their current trajectory. Believe it or not, I was a "If you don't want to get shot just follow the damn law!" type when I joined CSF way back when. NCPatrolAR was the beginning of the end of that. The continuing refusal of many in LE to accept responsibility and culpability for the harm many of their members do, whether through negligence or malice, has pushed me into a zero tolerance stance, similar to that taken by many in the LE community, though shining back at the enforcers.
So the report goes they shot the guy's dog then shoot the homeowner because he wouldn't disarm after some people with guns shot his dog?
If you believe the report he didn't have a gun. If you don't believe the report why believe any of it?WTF is Rachel Maddow doing as your Avatar?
And for what it's worth, I don't want to see the whole thing burn. I pray we avoid it.
But I also see it as inevitable if things remain in their current trajectory. Believe it or not, I was a "If you don't want to get shot just follow the damn law!" type when I joined CSF way back when. NCPatrolAR was the beginning of the end of that. The continuing refusal of many in LE to accept responsibility and culpability for the harm many of their members do, whether through negligence or malice, has pushed me into a zero tolerance stance, similar to that taken by many in the LE community, though shining back at the enforcers.
So the report goes they shot the guy's dog then shoot the homeowner because he wouldn't disarm after some people with guns shot his dog?
That's Eggsy from the Kingsman. Get it?, Kings Man.
WTF is Rachel Maddow doing as your Avatar?
And for what it's worth, I don't want to see the whole thing burn. I pray we avoid it.
But I also see it as inevitable if things remain in their current trajectory. Believe it or not, I was a "If you don't want to get shot just follow the damn law!" type when I joined CSF way back when. NCPatrolAR was the beginning of the end of that. The continuing refusal of many in LE to accept responsibility and culpability for the harm many of their members do, whether through negligence or malice, has pushed me into a zero tolerance stance, similar to that taken by many in the LE community, though shining back at the enforcers.
So the report goes they shot the guy's dog then shoot the homeowner because he wouldn't disarm after some people with guns shot his dog?
Flat out someone is lying, be it the police or the witnesses and family by way of the attorney, still wish body cam footage was available or released to prove either way what happened.
Last edited:
This. Right. Here. Is THE problem with "government". Is the belief that you can take a certain subset and elevate them to a privileged status above the "common" folk and bestow upon them powers, such as not only being armed but drawing down on a person who has done nothing wrong in their own goddamn home While demanding they disarm and allow themselves to be restrained. NO. Absolutely not. It's an irrational idea and people need to start waking up to this fact.
Oh and for the record, @Cowboy I don't want to burn it down either, but I don't see things getting fixed until a decent portion of it does and I am not content with this borderline Stasi State. I wish I could, but my experience is that once folks get a taste of that fake power called "government" they won't give it up willing.
Last edited:
