Out Rage at sbpd!

[rockhopper46038]

PA2Ind,

Take the advice of those who suggested you contact a lawyer. If nothing else, you'll get an appraisal of your alternatives.

 

[Valvestate]

I didn't know this was reddit...

 

[JetGirl]

Close! ReddIngo

 

[fullmetaljesus]

I didn't know this was reddit...

how did this become reddit?

 

[Sureshot129]

I want to mak sure I understand this so please bare with me here.

Your response does make logical sense and ties in the OPs events. I'm guessing you hit the nail on the head.

Just so I'm clear, if a neighbor calls and says I beat my wife which is something I would never in a million years do, the LEOs arriving at the scene will more than likely treat me as guilty and are fully within the scope of the law to disarm me?

Would you, if it was your job walk into a hostile situation and let a potentially violent person keep the means to kill you and and the supposed victim?

If my wife says, hell no he doesn't beat on me, the officers will most likely not believe her and assume she's lying out of fear of possible reprisal from the abuser later? The neighbor is the default honest third party in this scenario?

Because is was not the officers first day on the job much to what Denny said would you not draw from your training and experience and not believe the possibly beaten wife would lie to keep from a latter a**whooping?

How would the husband even know what was going on? How do the police know what is going on?If police show up as in the OPs scenario, the last thing I'm thinking is the police are here because they think I'm beating on my wife. If I'm legally obliged to surrender my firearm and be subjected to investigation, on my own property none the less, but have no idea why LEOs are there, why would I even comply? Which then makes matters worse. How does this make matters worse?

I know my initial instincts are to not trust LEOs while they're in the process of being LEOs. As people, some of the nicest folks I've met but during the course of doing their jobs, I've had zero positive encounters. I'm not consenting or complying to anything until someone explains to me why they're there in the first place.

I can understand that, but your attitude may dictate there attitude. Walk a mile in there shoes most likely the call they got was "My neighbor is beating his wife and has a gun." You respond on arrival you have seconds to decide a) if this guy is going to kill you. b) if the report is true. Then add the guy is being a RICHARD toward you. Would you not want to take control of the most dangerous elements in the situation and then figure out what is going on?

I'm trying to be descriptive, not judgmental (although I recognize I'm failing) but would really appreciate some clarification. When you're innocent but being mistreated by an LEO, what are you supposed to do. Just take it and file a complaint after the fact? Is there any other profession on the planet any one of us would allow that to happen and not seek immediate retribution?

Look at it this way on arrival police have to in seconds determine who is who what is going on and make sure that 1) They go home in one piece and 2) nobody gets hurt.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Sounds like the 911 caller, if there is one needs to be interrogated as to what they actually saw or heard.

 

[Denny347]

I want to mak sure I understand this so please bare with me here.

Your response does make logical sense and ties in the OPs events. I'm guessing you hit the nail on the head.

Just so I'm clear, if a neighbor calls and says I beat my wife which is something I would never in a million years do, the LEOs arriving at the scene will more than likely treat me as guilty and are fully within the scope of the law to disarm me?
Not treating you as guilty but we will make the scene safe until we figure out what is going on. We are there to investigate a crime. The suspect in that crime is armed. The suspect will be made "safe" until the investigation is completed. Neither party will leave our sights nor have any weapons during the course of this investigation, domestic disturbance 101.
If my wife says, hell no he doesn't beat on me, the officers will most likely not believe her and assume she's lying out of fear of possible reprisal from the abuser later?
It is not a matter of believing her or not. We have to make sure she is not speaking out of fear and able to give her version of events away from the suspect and the fear of retaliation. I cannot tell you how many times I have shown up on DV calls and the wife immediately tells me all is ok, in front of husband. I talk to her again in a room away from him where she finally feels safe and she tells me the truth. The 100% best way for me to prevent future violence is arrest the abuser if I find PC. It is not up to the spouse to press charges, I do so with or without their consent as long as I have PC.

The neighbor is the default honest third party in this scenario?

No but they usually have much less to gain by lying to us than the involved parties.

How would the husband even know what was going on? If police show up as in the OPs scenario, the last thing I'm thinking is the police are here because they think I'm beating on my wife. If I'm legally obliged to surrender my firearm and be subjected to investigation, on my own property none the less, but have no idea why LEOs are there, why would I even comply? Which then makes matters worse.

At some point early in the investigation you should be told. Since the officers have a valid reason to be there, failing to comply CAN result in a resisting law enforcement charge.

I know my initial instincts are to not trust LEOs while they're in the process of being LEOs. As people, some of the nicest folks I've met but during the course of doing their jobs, I've had zero positive encounters. I'm not consenting or complying to anything until someone explains to me why they're there in the first place.
I understand, my instincts tell me that most citizens I come across while working will tell mostly lies with a bit of truth sprinkled in. I understand the non consenting, however, do not think that your cooperation is required. If there are 2 parties and one tells us their story and the other won't say anything, I guess by default we will be basing our investigation off the only version of events told to us.
I'm trying to be descriptive, not judgmental (although I recognize I'm failing) but would really appreciate some clarification. When you're innocent but being mistreated by an LEO, what are you supposed to do. Just take it and file a complaint after the fact? Is there any other profession on the planet any one of us would allow that to happen and not seek immediate retribution?

Seek retribution? I think you mean "redress". You seeking retribution would only turn VERY BADLY for you. "Being mistreated" is a very broad phrase. Mistreated how? For example, if I arrest you (with PC) and you feel that I have no PC, that you are innocent, you want to legally resist me? Ain't gonna happen. You will lose and the magnitude of your loss will be based on your level of resistance. When it comes to resistors, I WIN!!! Every time. See the meaning of "probable cause" means that you "probably" did it. Does not mean you 100% did it. I does not mean you are guilty. You could be 100% innocent but PC can still exist. Your remedy to this is through the courts, not on the street.

 

[Lock load]

I don't understand why the automatic response by some people to the OP is that he is being less than truthful.
Unless that person has a history of making things up or I have facts of the incident that aren't being told or that something being told about the incident isn't possible. I don't automatically assume the person is exaggerating or lying.
I personally prefer to hear both sides of a story before making an opinion but sometimes you only get one side of it.
I personally have had a few times in my life that LEO's (a couple of them by SBPD LEO's btw) have been out of line with me and I am the furthest thing from a trouble maker that you can get.
I understand that when encountering a situation like the op's that emotions run high and not every single word or detail is remembered but that doesn't mean he was being untruthful.
Ever since I started carrying I never leave my home without my gun and I also bring my digital recorder in case of situations like this (It's too bad that we have to prove we're not lying).

 

[rockhopper46038]

Seek retribution? I think you mean "redress". You seeking retribution would only turn VERY BADLY for you. "Being mistreated" is a very broad phrase. Mistreated how? For example, if I arrest you (with PC) and you feel that I have no PC, that you are innocent, you want to legally resist me? Ain't gonna happen. You will lose and the magnitude of your loss will be based on your level of resistance. When it comes to resistors, I WIN!!! Every time. See the meaning of "probable cause" means that you "probably" did it. Does not mean you 100% did it. I does not mean you are guilty. You could be 100% innocent but PC can still exist. Your remedy to this is through the courts, not on the street.

Denny347, thank you for this post. While I don't necessarily like all the answers, I understand that they are the product of what I would call poor policy, and not the decision of any individual officer of the law. It's very useful and helpful to be able to read your take on the questions that gentleman asked.

 

[DadOfFour]

Look at it this way on arrival police have to in seconds determine who is who what is going on and make sure that 1) They go home in one piece and 2) nobody gets hurt.

Seek retribution? I think you mean "redress". You seeking retribution would only turn VERY BADLY for you. "Being mistreated" is a very broad phrase. Mistreated how? For example, if I arrest you (with PC) and you feel that I have no PC, that you are innocent, you want to legally resist me? Ain't gonna happen. You will lose and the magnitude of your loss will be based on your level of resistance. When it comes to resistors, I WIN!!! Every time. See the meaning of "probable cause" means that you "probably" did it. Does not mean you 100% did it. I does not mean you are guilty. You could be 100% innocent but PC can still exist. Your remedy to this is through the courts, not on the street.

Gentlemen, I'm going to ask a question here, and understand I ask this as somebody who used to be a police officer, and has answered more than enough DV calls to last a lifetime, so I fully understand how volatile they can be, and I fully understand the idea "We go home at the end of our shift."
Under what statute do you forcibly enter private property (as in the OPs post) and disarm someone? The fact is a 911 call does NOT equal PC, if it did there'd be no drug houses because all that would be needed would be an anonymous 911 call saying "they're selling drugs at 123 any st" and boom you'd have your warrant. So please, cite the statutory authority for forcibly entering the OPs property and disarming them.

 

[TiminMishawaka]

I've had SBPD be pretty cool to me about carrying my gun when I was pulled over for a traffic stop. I remember a dude on a motorcycle who'd open carry his Glock all the time in SB.

If I were you, I'd talk to Len of Len's Ammo Shop. I'm guessing he has local pro2A legal representation on speed dial.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Gentlemen, I'm going to ask a question here, and understand I ask this as somebody who used to be a police officer, and has answered more than enough DV calls to last a lifetime, so I fully understand how volatile they can be, and I fully understand the idea "We go home at the end of our shift."
Under what statute do you forcibly enter private property (as in the OPs post) and disarm someone? The fact is a 911 call does NOT equal PC, if it did there'd be no drug houses because all that would be needed would be an anonymous 911 call saying "they're selling drugs at 123 any st" and boom you'd have your warrant. So please, cite the statutory authority for forcibly entering the OPs property and disarming them.

Good question

 

[KG1]

That is a good question. Does a 911 call constitute PC on it's own?

 

[Valvestate]

how did this become reddit?

This thread went towards being a flame war for a bit there

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Gentlemen, I'm going to ask a question here, and understand I ask this as somebody who used to be a police officer, and has answered more than enough DV calls to last a lifetime, so I fully understand how volatile they can be, and I fully understand the idea "We go home at the end of our shift."
Under what statute do you forcibly enter private property (as in the OPs post) and disarm someone? The fact is a 911 call does NOT equal PC, if it did there'd be no drug houses because all that would be needed would be an anonymous 911 call saying "they're selling drugs at 123 any st" and boom you'd have your warrant. So please, cite the statutory authority for forcibly entering the OPs property and disarming them.

This is really the best post in this thread. Denny brought up some good points and I think sunk it home for how it went down in the cops minds.

The end result is:

A. Did the police have RAS the believe the OP was 'Armed AND Dangerous' simply from a 911 call pending no previous experiences/warnings on that address?

B. If they did/didn't then did they overstep their authority in their actions?

Frankly the name calling and mockery seems like SOP for many police out there when they make contact with an otherwise innocent citizen; HOWEVER I personally don't see much of a point to bring a lawsuit to this equation. A formal, written complaint and talk to their superiors? Absolutely!

 

[Denny347]

Gentlemen, I'm going to ask a question here, and understand I ask this as somebody who used to be a police officer, and has answered more than enough DV calls to last a lifetime, so I fully understand how volatile they can be, and I fully understand the idea "We go home at the end of our shift."
Under what statute do you forcibly enter private property (as in the OPs post) and disarm someone? The fact is a 911 call does NOT equal PC, if it did there'd be no drug houses because all that would be needed would be an anonymous 911 call saying "they're selling drugs at 123 any st" and boom you'd have your warrant. So please, cite the statutory authority for forcibly entering the OPs property and disarming them.

C'mon, as a police officer you must know that there is no IC code for such things, actions are guided by case law/court decisions. Warrantless entry is permissible for some domestic violence calls based on the facts and circumstances available at the time. Again, as a LEO you know that PC is not needed to stop,disarm, enter property...only reasonable suspicion that a crime is or has just occurred. Calls to 911 can be RS depending on information given.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

C'mon, as a police officer you must know that there is no IC code for such things, actions are guided by case law/court decisions. Warrantless entry is permissible for some domestic violence calls based on the facts and circumstances available at the time. Again, as a LEO you know that PC is not needed to stop,disarm, enter property...only reasonable suspicion that a crime is or has just occurred. Calls to 911 can be RS depending on information given.

Is this backed up by case law?

 

[KG1]

This is really the best post in this thread. Denny brought up some good points and I think sunk it home for how it went down in the cops minds.

The end result is:

A. Did the police have RAS the believe the OP was 'Armed AND Dangerous' simply from a 911 call pending no previous experiences/warnings on that address?

B. If they did/didn't then did they overstep their authority in their actions?

Frankly the name calling and mockery seems like SOP for many police out there when they make contact with an otherwise innocent citizen; HOWEVER I personally don't see much of a point to bring a lawsuit to this equation. A formal, written complaint and talk to their superiors? Absolutely!

Maybe when they pulled up and asked him where his weapons were and he told them that might have gave them PC to proceed since I believe the 911 caller stated that he was armed.

 

[LegatoRedrivers]

I don't understand why the automatic response by some people to the OP is that he is being less than truthful.
Unless that person has a history of making things up or I have facts of the incident that aren't being told or that something being told about the incident isn't possible. I don't automatically assume the person is exaggerating or lying.
I personally prefer to hear both sides of a story before making an opinion but sometimes you only get one side of it.
I personally have had a few times in my life that LEO's (a couple of them by SBPD LEO's btw) have been out of line with me and I am the furthest thing from a trouble maker that you can get.
I understand that when encountering a situation like the op's that emotions run high and not every single word or detail is remembered but that doesn't mean he was being untruthful.
Ever since I started carrying I never leave my home without my gun and I also bring my digital recorder in case of situations like this (It's too bad that we have to prove we're not lying).

This is the INTERNET. My first assumption of ANYTHING that I read on the internet is that it might be less than truthful.

 

[Denny347]

That is a good question. Does a 911 call constitute PC on it's own?

PC? We are dealing with reasonable suspicion. PC is what is needed for arrest, not to detain someone for a criminal investigation. RS is a MUCH lower standard.