Home invasion and beating by Police [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Home invasion and beating by Police


jdavionic
03-21-2012, 06:47
This is a continuation of a discussion of a thread that I started in the carry section. Based on the lawsuit, it alleges that these officers were conducting a "personal investigation", entered this home, beat a man with autism in his home, searched his home without a warrant, took him back to the police station and beat him again to get a confession.

If all true, it's pretty despicable.

http://pennrecord.com/news/city-and-...n-with-autism/ (http://pennrecord.com/news/city-and-police-officers-sued-for-false-arrest-and-beating-of-man-with-autism/)

Bren
03-21-2012, 06:56
This is a continuation of a discussion of a thread that I started in the carry section. Based on the lawsuit, it alleges that these officers were conducting a "personal investigation", entered this home, beat a man with autism in his home, searched his home without a warrant, took him back to the police station and beat him again to get a confession.

If all true, it's pretty despicable.

http://pennrecord.com/news/city-and-...n-with-autism/ (http://pennrecord.com/news/city-and-police-officers-sued-for-false-arrest-and-beating-of-man-with-autism/)

What you describe sounds very, very unlikely to be true. Contrary to the movies, beating people is the hardest way to get a confession, for one thing, so it is shockingly rare in real life.

jdavionic
03-21-2012, 17:45
What you describe sounds very, very unlikely to be true. Contrary to the movies, beating people is the hardest way to get a confession, for one thing, so it is shockingly rare in real life.

Interesting history with one of the officers. Here is another lawsuit from 2007 - False arrest,police brutality,...
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_07-cv-02966/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_07-cv-02966-1.pdf

Perhaps the others too...just haven't found anything on them yet.

Kingarthurhk
03-21-2012, 19:06
What you describe sounds very, very unlikely to be true. Contrary to the movies, beating people is the hardest way to get a confession, for one thing, so it is shockingly rare in real life.

True. As learned by Medieval Catholicism and the Inquisitions, torture only gets you what you want to hear, not the information which you are seeking.

Mister_Beefy
03-21-2012, 21:19
police misconduct happens every single day.

Bren
03-22-2012, 05:11
Interesting history with one of the officers. Here is another lawsuit from 2007 - False arrest,police brutality,...
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_07-cv-02966/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_07-cv-02966-1.pdf

Perhaps the others too...just haven't found anything on them yet.

Most officers I've worked with, including me, have been sued for civil rights violations - so? It's part of the job and getting more common. "perhaps the others too?" It's all in a computer database - all they have to do is put in their names to find every case they are a party to or ever have been.

People can sue for anything - the agency I work for now just got sued because a parolee ran away from a halfway house...he didn't do anything to the person suing us, or even go to the city she lives in, but as the victim of the drunk driving accident that sent him to prison, she was so scared she wants money from the government to pay for everything from a new hosue to a car to "witness protection benefits" - that 100% true.

Bren
03-22-2012, 05:13
police misconduct happens every single day.

Then lies about police misconduct happen 1,000 times a day. Literally, probably a LOT more than that.

I have defended probably thousands of lawsuits against police and corrections officers. I'm sure a thousand claimed misconduct. Do you know how many times my clients were actually found to have acted improperly? None so far.

Mister_Beefy
03-22-2012, 17:30
Then lies about police misconduct happen 1,000 times a day. Literally, probably a LOT more than that.

I have defended probably thousands of lawsuits against police and corrections officers. I'm sure a thousand claimed misconduct. Do you know how many times my clients were actually found to have acted improperly? None so far.


don't make what I said untrue.

RussP
03-23-2012, 07:30
Then lies about police misconduct happen 1,000 times a day. Literally, probably a LOT more than that.

I have defended probably thousands of lawsuits against police and corrections officers. I'm sure a thousand claimed misconduct. Do you know how many times my clients were actually found to have acted improperly? None so far.In your personal experience, what is the ratio of complaints with merit to those without merit?

Kingarthurhk
03-23-2012, 17:33
don't make what I said untrue.

He doesn't need to help you what. You are pefectly capable of doing that on your own.

Mister_Beefy
03-24-2012, 02:12
He doesn't need to help you what. You are pefectly capable of doing that on your own.


sorry, my grammar wasn't a clear as it should have been.

bren said blah blah blah None so far.

what I meant in reply was

that does not make what I said untrue.

MarkM32
03-24-2012, 02:22
I doubt this is true either. Maybe to some extent, but things always get blown up by someone trying to make a quick buck. I can say I've also had civil claims against myself and my department. Hell, I had someone try to sue me and my department because I went on a curb at an intersection. 2 lane road, roadway was loaded with cars, I popped on the curb to go around. Didn't hit the guy, but he felt like he was in serious danger because "I could have lost control at any minute." That's not the only time either. Lots of criminals are illedging some off the wall stuff to get out of their charges.

Bren
03-24-2012, 06:04
don't make what I said untrue.

What makes what you said untrue is that you have no direct knowledge of police and their conduct, so you have no basis for your statement.

Bren
03-24-2012, 07:00
In your personal experience, what is the ratio of complaints with merit to those without merit?

It would be hard to estimate. Maybe 1 in 1,000 has merit. The rest are a combination of people trying to leverage their way out of trouble, not understanding the law, or lying for revenge.

What was always strange to me, when I was a cop, was that the times I was most likely to get a complaint or lawsuit were the times when I gave somebody a break. My theory was that, because of their lack of knowledge and/or ego, they like to interpret getting a break from the police as the police being wrong.

muscogee
03-24-2012, 08:47
As I have written before, the level of professionalism depends on where you live.
the San Antonio police are consummate professionals. I have a lot of respect for them. Rural America, not so much.

jdavionic
03-24-2012, 09:24
So for those that think the claim is "fake", can you explain...

why wasn't the young man convicted of the crime that he 'confessed' to?
why didn't the cops show up to the resisting arrest hearing?
and even if the 'victim' did steal the cell phones, what gives the police the right to enter his home and search the premises without a warrant?
Sorry, but I would think if the police were in the right on this one, the guy would be in jail or at least awaiting trial for the theft of the cell phones and resisting arrest.

Mister_Beefy
03-27-2012, 02:02
What makes what you said untrue is that you have no direct knowledge of police and their conduct, so you have no basis for your statement.


that's like saying because I've never been to paris and seen the eiffel tower, I can not declare that it is 1063 feet tall.

oh wait, were talking about police misconduct and I mention the eiffel tower.

(deep breath)


STRAW MAN ARGUMENT!

so because I have no direct knowledge of police and their conduct, I have no basis for my statement and therefore what I said is untrue.

yet you have defended probably thousands of lawsuits against police and corrections officers, and seen what you're sure are a thousand claims of misconduct, and so far none have been true, therefore policemisconduct does not exist?

because I'm saying it happens every day.

and you're saying what I'm saying is untrue because I have no direct knowledge of police and their conduct.



maybe russp can step in and educate me on coptalk logic here, because from where I'm looking, your argument is pretty weak.

I would be more vehement in my protest, but if I even say boo to a coptalk goose I get an infraction.

so I hope you have a wonderful night. nice conversing with you.

(because whenever coptalkers are called out to back up their claims and provide anything more substantial than veiled insults and superior posturing.... they disappear)

Bren
03-27-2012, 04:54
that's like saying because I've never been to paris and seen the eiffel tower, I can not declare that it is 1063 feet tall.

oh wait, were talking about police misconduct and I mention the eiffel tower.

(deep breath)


STRAW MAN ARGUMENT!

If you think that's a "straw man argument" you need to study what a straw man argument is a little more.


so because I have no direct knowledge of police and their conduct, I have no basis for my statement and therefore what I said is untrue.


A conclusion without a fact basis is pretty much the definition of "untrue".


yet you have defended probably thousands of lawsuits against police and corrections officers, and seen what you're sure are a thousand claims of misconduct, and so far none have been true, therefore policemisconduct does not exist?

because I'm saying it happens every day.

and you're saying what I'm saying is untrue because I have no direct knowledge of police and their conduct.

I CLEARLY did not say it doesn't exist - I even discussed when it does exist. That none of my clients have ever lost in court or been found to have engaged in misconduct doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I know cops who have engaged in misconduct, gone to prison, been fired, etc.


maybe russp can step in and educate me on coptalk logic here, because from where I'm looking, your argument is pretty weak.

I would be more vehement in my protest, but if I even say boo to a coptalk goose I get an infraction.

so I hope you have a wonderful night. nice conversing with you.

(because whenever coptalkers are called out to back up their claims and provide anything more substantial than veiled insults and superior posturing.... they disappear)

Cops, lawyers, etc., have learned that when they state a conclusion, somebody is going to ask for the fact basis for the conclusion. Online we can't verify that your facts are true or not, but when you have no facts to state, you should expect to get called on it.

RussP
03-27-2012, 17:45
Since you invited...police misconduct happens every single day....I have defended probably thousands of lawsuits against police and corrections officers. I'm sure a thousand claimed misconduct.maybe russp can step in and educate me on coptalk logic here, because from where I'm looking, your argument is pretty weak.He agreed with you...that's weak?

And here comes your inflammatory trolling statement.(because whenever coptalkers are called out to back up their claims and provide anything more substantial than veiled insults and superior posturing.... they disappear)To refute Bren's contention about your knowledge, please answer these questions:Can you cite 365 cases of misconduct committed over 365 consecutive days that were successfully prosecuted? If yes, please do so.

What do you consider misconduct?

Kingarthurhk
03-27-2012, 21:10
that's like saying because I've never been to paris and seen the eiffel tower, I can not declare that it is 1063 feet tall.

oh wait, were talking about police misconduct and I mention the eiffel tower.

(deep breath)


STRAW MAN ARGUMENT!

so because I have no direct knowledge of police and their conduct, I have no basis for my statement and therefore what I said is untrue.

yet you have defended probably thousands of lawsuits against police and corrections officers, and seen what you're sure are a thousand claims of misconduct, and so far none have been true, therefore policemisconduct does not exist?

because I'm saying it happens every day.

and you're saying what I'm saying is untrue because I have no direct knowledge of police and their conduct.



maybe russp can step in and educate me on coptalk logic here, because from where I'm looking, your argument is pretty weak.

I would be more vehement in my protest, but if I even say boo to a coptalk goose I get an infraction.

so I hope you have a wonderful night. nice conversing with you.

(because whenever coptalkers are called out to back up their claims and provide anything more substantial than veiled insults and superior posturing.... they disappear)


Ah, yes, the Stawman Argument defense. Used frequently by people who don't know what it means when they are backed into a corner.

Stawman -A straw man is a component of an argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument) and is an informal fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy) based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.<sup id="cite_ref-book_0-0" class="reference">[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#cite_note-book-0)</sup> To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

http://www.queen-of-theme-party-games.com/images/scarecrow-wizard-of-oz.jpg

Hrsuhd
03-27-2012, 21:30
Then lies about police misconduct happen 1,000 times a day. Literally, probably a LOT more than that.

I have defended probably thousands of lawsuits against police and corrections officers. I'm sure a thousand claimed misconduct. Do you know how many times my clients were actually found to have acted improperly? None so far.

Dosent mean they are not guilty just means your a good lawyer:tongueout:

OldCurlyWolf
03-30-2012, 21:23
What makes what you said untrue is that you have no direct knowledge of police and their conduct, so you have no basis for your statement.

He may not but I do have direct knowledge and I have personally observed misconduct on the part of serving police officers.

Thankfully as yet, it is not a large percentage but appears to be enlarging.:cool:

jdavionic
03-30-2012, 22:03
So for those that think the claim is "fake", can you explain...

why wasn't the young man convicted of the crime that he 'confessed' to?
why didn't the cops show up to the resisting arrest hearing?
and even if the 'victim' did steal the cell phones, what gives the police the right to enter his home and search the premises without a warrant?
Sorry, but I would think if the police were in the right on this one, the guy would be in jail or at least awaiting trial for the theft of the cell phones and resisting arrest.

I asked this several posts ago and the questions remain unanswered by those asserting it is "fake".

RussP
03-31-2012, 10:14
So for those that think the claim is "fake", can you explain...

why wasn't the young man convicted of the crime that he 'confessed' to?
why didn't the cops show up to the resisting arrest hearing?
and even if the 'victim' did steal the cell phones, what gives the police the right to enter his home and search the premises without a warrant?
Sorry, but I would think if the police were in the right on this one, the guy would be in jail or at least awaiting trial for the theft of the cell phones and resisting arrest.

I asked this several posts ago and the questions remain unanswered by those asserting it is "fake".Perhaps it is that no one here has the information required to give factual responses/answers/explanations to those specific questions.

Bren posted:What you describe sounds very, very unlikely to be true. Contrary to the movies, beating people is the hardest way to get a confession, for one thing, so it is shockingly rare in real life.You changed "very, very unlikely to be true" to "the claim is 'fake'."

I do not take Bren's statement as an absolute claim of fakery. For me, "very, very unlikely" leaves a door open. Had he said, "absolutely unlikely," that door would be slammed shut.

Do you have a copy of the filed law suit? There may be details in the complaint not reported which might help.

2-8 Marine
03-31-2012, 10:43
He may not but I do have direct knowledge and I have personally observed misconduct on the part of serving police officers.

Thankfully as yet, it is not a large percentage but appears to be enlarging.:cool:

Mr Beefys comment was, police misconduct is happening every single day.

Are you saying you've personally observed these serving police officers engage in misconduct everyday or on just one occasion? No one has said police misconduct dosent occur, but everyday seems to be an extreme comment. :dunno:

jdavionic
03-31-2012, 11:41
Perhaps it is that no one here has the information required to give factual responses/answers/explanations to those specific questions.

Well, that's the point isn't it. There is the allegation within the lawsuit. There is a history of at least one similar past allegation against the same individual. Yet, we get
Bren posted:You changed "very, very unlikely to be true"

So it's very, very unlikely to be true based on nothing specific to the information posted. I will certainly concede that "fake" and "very, very unlikely true" are not the same. So I'll re-phrase:


So for those that think the claim is "very, very unlikely untrue", can you explain...

why wasn't the young man convicted of the crime that he 'confessed' to?
why didn't the cops show up to the resisting arrest hearing?
and even if the 'victim' did steal the cell phones, what gives the police the right to enter his home and search the premises without a warrant?
Sorry, but I would think if the police were in the right on this one, the guy would be in jail or at least awaiting trial for the theft of the cell phones and resisting arrest.

Do you have a copy of the filed law suit? There may be details in the complaint not reported which might help.

It looks like you have to pay money for more info. Aside from the OP, this was the only other info that I found:
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2012cv00886/458771/

jdavionic
03-31-2012, 12:01
RussP - Back when I originally posted the article, you made the following comment:
Someone convince me otherwise. I'm going to move it to Civil Liberties Issues unless a very persuasive argument not to is made.

If it stays here, you'll miss out on the really interesting, really juicy back stories about those involved.

What were you referring to in the bolded part?

RussP
03-31-2012, 14:27
RussP - Back when I originally posted the article, you made the following comment:


What were you referring to in the bolded part?Well, you found a little bit of it...keep digging.

RussP
03-31-2012, 15:08
Perhaps it is that no one here has the information required to give factual responses/answers/explanations to those specific questions.Well, that's the point isn't it. There is the allegation within the lawsuit. There is a history of at least one similar past allegation against the same individual. Yet, we get Bren posted:You changed "very, very unlikely to be true" to "the claim is 'fake'."So it's very, very unlikely to be true based on nothing specific to the information posted. I will certainly concede that "fake" and "very, very unlikely true" are not the same. So I'll re-phrase:

So for those that think the claim is "very, very unlikely untrue", can you explain...

why wasn't the young man convicted of the crime that he 'confessed' to?
why didn't the cops show up to the resisting arrest hearing?
and even if the 'victim' did steal the cell phones, what gives the police the right to enter his home and search the premises without a warrant?
Changing your words still does not add the information needed to draw factual conclusions and give you the "explanations" you want.Sorry, but I would think if the police were in the right on this one, the guy would be in jail or at least awaiting trial for the theft of the cell phones and resisting arrest.Who said the police were right?It looks like you have to pay money for more info. Aside from the OP, this was the only other info that I found:
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2012cv00886/458771/Well, then everyone gets to wait for all the details alleged in the complaint are published publicly.

jdavionic
03-31-2012, 16:38
Changing your words still does not add the information needed to draw factual conclusions and give you the "explanations" you want.Who said the police were right?

You're missing the point. I have given facts. I'm asking the person that is asserting a conclusion that is contrary to the facts to support their statement.

Facts that I've provided are:

the young autistic man was not convicted of a crime that he "confessed" to.
police failed to show up to the hearing for the young man's charge of resisting arrest.
police entered the young man's home without a search warrant.
at least one of the officers has been accused of something very similar.
a lawsuit has been filed against the Philadelphia PD officers.
So those are the facts. Yet someone is asserting that despite these facts, it is "very, very unlikely true" (referring to the accusations in the lawsuit). So...okay, I'm not saying the gent is right or wrong. I'm asking him to explain the contradiction between his assertion and the facts that have been presented so far.

jdavionic
03-31-2012, 17:10
Well, you found a little bit of it...keep digging.

Yes, I'll keep digging on additional information pertaining to the OP. However since I don't know what you were thinking when you posted this, I'll leave it to you to 'dig' on that one if you're so inclined.
you'll miss out on the really interesting, really juicy back stories about those involved.
If not, obviously that's fine too. I was just curious what you were referring to and if you'd share with the rest of us.

jdavionic
03-31-2012, 17:20
Some more facts:

Detective Anthony Anderson was promoted to detective in 2008:
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/dncrime/27640434.html



Officer Ryan Sullivan - Iraq vet, served in President Reagan's honor guard, saved girl from fire & smoke
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=6385858
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Cops-Fight-Smoke-Fire-to-Save-Girls.html



And, as already posted, Officer Jason Shensky - previously sued for false arrest, police brutality,...
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_07-cv-02966/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_07-cv-02966-1.pdf

RussP
03-31-2012, 19:05
You're missing the point. I have given facts. I'm asking the person that is asserting a conclusion that is contrary to the facts to support their statement.

Facts that I've provided are:

the young autistic man was not convicted of a crime that he "confessed" to.
police failed to show up to the hearing for the young man's charge of resisting arrest.
police entered the young man's home without a search warrant.
at least one of the officers has been accused of something very similar.
a lawsuit has been filed against the Philadelphia PD officers.
So those are the facts. Yet someone is asserting that despite these facts, it is "very, very unlikely true" (referring to the accusations in the lawsuit). So...okay, I'm not saying the gent is right or wrong. I'm asking him to explain the contradiction between his assertion and the facts that have been presented so far.You might want to go back and read Bren's post in its entirety.What you describe sounds very, very unlikely to be true. Contrary to the movies, beating people is the hardest way to get a confession, for one thing, so it is shockingly rare in real life.I do believe he only questions the voracity of the "beating the young man to obtain a confession" part of the story.

jdavionic
03-31-2012, 19:41
You might want to go back and read Bren's post in its entirety.I do believe he only questions the voracity of the "beating the young man to obtain a confession" part of the story.

Not exactly.

He quoted the following from me:
This is a continuation of a discussion of a thread that I started in the carry section. Based on the lawsuit, it alleges that these officers were conducting a "personal investigation", entered this home, beat a man with autism in his home, searched his home without a warrant, took him back to the police station and beat him again to get a confession.

If all true, it's pretty despicable.

http://pennrecord.com/news/city-and-...n-with-autism/


So he quoted the entire post above and said:
What you describe sounds very, very unlikely to be true. Contrary to the movies, beating people is the hardest way to get a confession, for one thing, so it is shockingly rare in real life.

I described more than the confession. His point about the confession was only cited as "one thing" in supporting his assertion that 'what I described was very, very unlikely to be true'.

Bren
04-01-2012, 05:48
Is this thread still going?

I'd be interested in where the Philly case goes, but I am reminded of the time my brother was sued in federal court for beating up a guy inside the county jail...

Luckily for my brother, he took a vacation day on the day that guy was arrested and could prove he was in another town.

The only thing uncommon about BS lawsuits is when you can pull out the smoking gun to prove they are BS - otherwise, the cop haters will always assume you did it.

RussP
04-01-2012, 06:22
Is this thread still going?:rofl: What, you some kinda wize guy...:animlol:I'd be interested in where the Philly case goes, but I am reminded of the time my brother was sued in federal court for beating up a guy inside the coutny jail...

Luckily for my brother, he took a vacation day on the day that guy was arrested and could prove he was in another town.Funny how those things happen...

The only thing uncommon about BS lawsuits is when you can pull out the smoking gun to prove they are BS - otherwise, the cop haters will always assume you did it.There are a couple other questions about this, but I'll ask jdavionic in a separate post...

RussP
04-01-2012, 08:38
His point about the confession was only cited as "one thing" in supporting his assertion that 'what I described was very, very unlikely to be true'.Okay, I believe, based on personal experiences, that when one possible falsehood is discovered in a series of allegations, the others may, or may not, be equally, or more or less questionable. Hell, that sounds like double talk...

My experience over 30 years is that if there is one false allegation in a statement, there is a probability there are other false or embellished allegations. The degree of probability depends on the totality of circumstances.

In this case, we do not have the full circumstances in front of us. Nor does it seem that there are any other media reports of the events of December 14, 2010. Why is that? Did my google-fu fail me and I just missed them?

Look at the facts according to the portions of the complaint in your article and tell me why this event was not news.


Marvin Smith is an autistic teenager (although at 19 he is an adult)


Marvin has a genetic heart condition that presents symptoms including fatigue/weakness


Two off duty police officers investigate, on their own, cell phone thefts.


Using department resources they associate Marvin either with the thefts, or as having knowledge of the thefts


They go to Marvin's address


The young man opens the door


Officers say, "This is our guy."


Young man tries to retreat and is struck with a baton


He is struck again with the baton.


Officers conducted a warrantless search of the home and retrieved various items


Smith was transported to the police station


There he was beaten again to gain a confession


He eventually underwent surgery at Temple University Hospital


An additional charge of resisting arrest was placed against Smith


That charge was dismissed because the original two officers did not show up for the hearing

Really, why are there not numerous news articles about police beating an autistic person?

There is another couple of questions that stick out that are nagging at me.

When the police officers were using the department resources, why did Marvin Smith's name and address come up? Was Marvin Smith already in the system? If yes, why was he in the system?

jdavionic, aren't you curious about that?

Before you get all excited, no, that does not excuse behavior like that alleged in the complaint.

Why didn't the officers show up for the resisting arrest hearing? That will perhaps be answered in the response to the Complaint. I have this question. Did they agree with the detective's decision?

Another question, okay, questions comes to mind about his injuries. How long after December 14 did he seek treatment? When he sought treatment, what did he say caused his injuries? Did he tell the doctors and nurses he was beaten by the police?

And did Mr. Smith file a complaint with the Philadelphia Police Advisory Commission? If not, why not?

Why wasn't this in the news, jdavionic?

jdavionic
04-01-2012, 12:23
In this case, we do not have the full circumstances in front of us. Nor does it seem that there are any other media reports of the events of December 14, 2010. Why is that? Did my google-fu fail me and I just missed them?
I don't know. I didn't find any either.


Officers conducted a warrantless search of the home and retrieved various itemsIs this legal, given the suspect's actions?

You skipped one observation in red, which is important.
Officers say, "This is our guy."
Officers then forced their way into his house.
Young man tries to retreat and is struck with a baton

Really, why are there not numerous news articles about police beating an autistic person?
There may have been and we cannot find them. And if not, why is that relevant to the facts?

When the police officers were using the department resources, why did Marvin Smith's name and address come up? Was Marvin Smith already in the system? If yes, why was he in the system?
"Using department resources" is somewhat vague. That can be anything from simply looking up an address to get the name associated with it to finding out that the person had a criminal background and or associations with others that is relevant to the case.

jdavionic, aren't you curious about that?
Yes.

Why didn't the officers show up for the resisting arrest hearing? That will perhaps be answered in the response to the Complaint. I have this question. Did they agree with the detective's decision?This touches on a bigger issue that I will address in the end.

Another question, okay, questions comes to mind about his injuries. How long after December 14 did he seek treatment? When he sought treatment, what did he say caused his injuries? Did he tell the doctors and nurses he was beaten by the police?

And did Mr. Smith file a complaint with the Philadelphia Police Advisory Commission? If not, why not?
Not enough info to answer these.




Here are the bigger issues, and perhaps Bren or you or others with experience in LE have rational answers.

If he confessed, why was he not convicted?
If he resisted arrest, is it common for officers to not show up at the hearing? In my area, the answer is no. However Philly - don't know.
And this is actually the one area that raises the most concern, what gave the officers the right to enter the young man's house? If officers show up at your house, say "this is our guy", and then start forcing their way into the house, would it be unusual for a person to react by being scared and try to retreat?
I have my doubts as to whether Mr. Smith is an angel here. However, I do have concerns that police MAY have acted inappropriately in how they handled this one.

RussP
04-01-2012, 15:37
However, I do have concerns that police MAY have acted inappropriately in how they handled this one.Did you deliberately not respond to thisBefore you get all excited, no, that does not excuse behavior like that alleged in the complaint.If everything is true, their behavior is inexcusable. If one part is true, that part is inexcusable.

Now that we have that out of the way...

RussP
04-01-2012, 15:49
Officers conducted a warrantless search of the home and retrieved various items
Is this legal, given the suspect's actions?I'll take it your question is rhetorical.

What were the "suspect's actions?" Why are a suspect's actions relative to a search of the house without a warrant?You skipped one observation in red, which is important.
Officers say, "This is our guy."
Officers then forced their way into his house.
Young man tries to retreat and is struck with a batonWhat resistance did Mr. Smith make to the entry? Did they push him to gain entry? What did they do to make a forcible entry? What degree of force was used?

Do you acknowledge you don't have all the facts in this matter?

RussP
04-01-2012, 16:01
Why didn't the officers show up for the resisting arrest hearing? That will perhaps be answered in the response to the Complaint. I have this question. Did they agree with the detective's decision?This touches on a bigger issue that I will address in the end.

If he resisted arrest, is it common for officers to not show up at the hearing? In my area, the answer is no. However Philly - don't know.
The complaint states the Detective added the resisting arrest charge. My question is did the officers agree with that decision? Right now, we do not know that, but it deserves an answer.

What motion did Smith make that caused the officers to strike him initially? If the answer is none, fine, bad decision on the officers part. They were wrong. We do not have that information, do we? Do you?

RussP
04-01-2012, 16:05
Another question, okay, questions comes to mind about his injuries. How long after December 14 did he seek treatment? When he sought treatment, what did he say caused his injuries? Did he tell the doctors and nurses he was beaten by the police?Not enough info to answer these.Do you believe that information might be important in providing the totality of circumstances?

RussP
04-01-2012, 16:23
Here are the bigger issues, and perhaps Bren or you or others with experience in LE have rational answers.

If he confessed, why was he not convicted?There is not enough information to say.Here are the bigger issues, and perhaps Bren or you or others with experience in LE have rational answers.

And this is actually the one area that raises the most concern, what gave the officers the right to enter the young man's house? If officers show up at your house, say "this is our guy", and then start forcing their way into the house, would it be unusual for a person to react by being scared and try to retreat?
The question is what gave the officers the belief they had authority to enter the house.

Whether it would be unusual for a person to react by being scared and try to retreat would depend on the person and their circumstances. The test is would a reasonable person react that way.I have my doubts as to whether Mr. Smith is an angel here. However, I do have concerns that police MAY have acted inappropriately in how they handled this one.You have concerns they MAY have acted inappropriately. You're a wuss. The statement should be: If the information in the parts of the complaint published in the linked article are true, the ***holes were way out of line, acted outside their authority and perhaps criminally.

If the information is false, is there a law against frivolous law suits.

jdavionic
04-02-2012, 15:38
Did you deliberately not respond to thisIf everything is true, their behavior is inexcusable. If one part is true, that part is inexcusable.

Now that we have that out of the way...

Uh...okay, we're in agreement, which should have been obvious from my other posts, and I didn't see that as soliciting a response from me. :whistling:

jdavionic
04-02-2012, 15:44
Whether it would be unusual for a person to react by being scared and try to retreat would depend on the person and their circumstances. The test is would a reasonable person react that way.
I think any reasonable person would be alarmed by the someone claiming to be police, saying 'this is our guy', and then forcing entry into your house.

You have concerns they MAY have acted inappropriately. You're a wuss. The statement should be: If the information in the parts of the complaint published in the linked article are true, the ***holes were way out of line, acted outside their authority and perhaps criminally.

If the information is false, is there a law against frivolous law suits.

Nice...name calling by a mod. :upeyes: The point is that there is doubt...hence the word "MAY". Obviously if I knew for certain that they beat this young man as alleged in the lawsuit (for example), then yes...they behaved as criminals, which is despicable and should be punished...as I cited in the OP. Same is true if they invaded his house outside the law.

Unlike what we've seen in the Tayvon case, I'm not willing to declare that they did or did not act inappropriately without seeing more facts in the case. If you deem that a "wuss", then you have issues.

jdavionic
04-02-2012, 15:52
Do you believe that information might be important in providing the totality of circumstances?

Yes, it might be. Do you have information as to when he got medical attention?

jdavionic
04-02-2012, 19:45
What were the "suspect's actions?"
All we know is what the suspect alleges his actions were...which was to retreat after they made a forcible entry. Note, I'm not saying what the lawsuit cites is factual or not. Just saying that all we know on that question is that the suspect has made an allegation regarding how the events happened.

Why are a suspect's actions relative to a search of the house without a warrant?
This gets into the other post on the same subject...to some extent. Putting that aside (since there is a separate thread and we're discussing civil rights here), I don't know what the law says in the case of police making entry into a home without a warrant in a situation like this one where they believe they have identified a suspect. I would think they'd still need to get a warrant, but I don't know that for certain.

What resistance did Mr. Smith make to the entry? Did they push him to gain entry? What did they do to make a forcible entry? What degree of force was used?
Again...is it unreasonable for a person to retreat given the circumstances? Whether or not he retreated immediately or pushed back on the door, does it matter...in other words, in either case...would entry still be a violation of his rights? I asked this questions earlier.

Do you acknowledge you don't have all the facts in this matter?

I would have thought these posts would be clear to most people. However you seem hell bent on some personal attack, so I don't know any other way to respond other than to repost what I've already said -
Do you have information as to when he got medical attention? ...clearly indicating that at least I don't have all the information here.

and another one...
I don't know. I didn't find any either.

another...
Not enough info to answer these.

and I could add more by the answers to your other questions as well.

jdavionic
04-02-2012, 20:08
Obviously if the allegations are true, the actions of the police here are despicable. And as I've already said, we don't know that's the case.

Putting that aside, consider this. Let's say that Smith stole those cell phones and the detective knows it. I'm not saying that's true...just a possible hypothetical to focus on one aspect.

So the detective and officers know Mr. Smith stole the cell phones, they approach his house...knock on his door...Smith opens, and the detective immediately recognizes him as 'the guy'. Whether the guy resists or not, they enter the house, arrest Mr. Smith, and confiscate cell phones. Violation of Mr. Smith's 4th Amendment rights or not?

Even if they saw a box of stolen cell phones sitting on his coffee table, wouldn't they simply use this observation as "probable cause" in getting a warrant? Or are there some actions / conditions that would allow them to enter his home anyway, arrest him, and conduct the search?

RussP
04-03-2012, 12:35
Obviously if the allegations are true, the actions of the police here are despicable. And as I've already said, we don't know that's the case.

Putting that aside, consider this. Let's say that Smith stole those cell phones and the detective knows it. I'm not saying that's true...just a possible hypothetical to focus on one aspect.

So the detective and officers know Mr. Smith stole the cell phones, they approach his house...knock on his door...Smith opens, and the detective immediately recognizes him as 'the guy'. Whether the guy resists or not, they enter the house, arrest Mr. Smith, and confiscate cell phones. Violation of Mr. Smith's 4th Amendment rights or not?

Even if they saw a box of stolen cell phones sitting on his coffee table, wouldn't they simply use this observation as "probable cause" in getting a warrant? Or are there some actions / conditions that would allow them to enter his home anyway, arrest him, and conduct the search?Hypothetically, if the detective knows Smith stole the phones, has proof he stole the phones, why would he not obtain the warrant.

Your hypothetical is not similar enough to the actual event. You added an absolute not in the original.

You are still fishing for someone to say absolutely that the police officers involved in the story you posted are guilty of violating the civil rights of Mr. Smith based on the "facts" you presented. You've agreed that we do not have all the facts. Absent those facts, you are not going to get anyone in law enforcement to give you that absolute affirmation you are seeking.

jdavionic
04-03-2012, 13:06
Hypothetically, if the detective knows Smith stole the phones, has proof he stole the phones, why would he not obtain the warrant.

Your hypothetical is not similar enough to the actual event. You added an absolute not in the original.

You are still fishing for someone to say absolutely that the police officers involved in the story you posted are guilty of violating the civil rights of Mr. Smith based on the "facts" you presented. You've agreed that we do not have all the facts. Absent those facts, you are not going to get anyone in law enforcement to give you that absolute affirmation you are seeking.

No sir, you're incorrect. I'm "fishing" to see if there are conditions / situations where police can enter a person's home without a warrant if a person has acted as I outlined. For example, a traffic stop and officers see drugs in the vehicle...they can and do make an arrest. I don't know if some states have a similar method of handling a similar situation like the one that Mr. Smith was involved. In other words, IF police confirm that a person is in the home that police are seeking for a crime and the suspect has opened the door, can the police give chase into the home? IF police see stolen property and the chief suspect in a home and the suspect opens the door and then tries to flee, can the police enter the home in pursuit?

If the answers are "yes", then this is a possible explanation and another fact to consider when assessing whether they acted appropriately. If the answers are "no, you must have warrant", then I would not see any way where the police acted appropriately with respect to entering the home.

jdavionic
04-03-2012, 13:15
Funny, I found this article on LegalZoom.com. It touches on what I was getting at.
http://www.legalzoom.com/everyday-law/home-leisure/can-police-search-your (http://www.legalzoom.com/everyday-law/home-leisure/can-police-search-your)

According to the article, there are 4 circumstances where no warrant is required:
1. Consent - the person in control of the property grants consent to search the premises.

2. Plain view - this is why I was mentioning the possibility that perhaps they could see evidence of the crime.

3. Search incident to arrest - not sure this one applies here. The police arrived at the home to investigate a crime. At least according to the lawsuit, they did not arrive to arrest Mr. Smith (although that was the result).

4. Exigent circumstances - where evidence could be destroyed or public danger could be a concern if they do not immediately enter. I don't see this being applicable here.

RussP
04-03-2012, 13:49
No sir, you're incorrect. I'm "fishing" to see if there are conditions / situations where police can enter a person's home without a warrant if a person has acted as I outlined. For example, a traffic stop and officers see drugs in the vehicle...they can and do make an arrest. I don't know if some states have a similar method of handling a similar situation like the one that Mr. Smith was involved. In other words, IF police confirm that a person is in the home that police are seeking for a crime and the suspect has opened the door, can the police give chase into the home? IF police see stolen property and the chief suspect in a home and the suspect opens the door and then tries to flee, can the police enter the home in pursuit?

If the answers are "yes", then this is a possible explanation and another fact to consider when assessing whether they acted appropriately. If the answers are "no, you must have warrant", then I would not see any way where the police acted appropriately with respect to entering the home.

Funny, I found this article on LegalZoom.com. It touches on what I was getting at.
http://www.legalzoom.com/everyday-law/home-leisure/can-police-search-your (http://www.legalzoom.com/everyday-law/home-leisure/can-police-search-your)

According to the article, there are 4 circumstances where no warrant is required:
1. Consent - the person in control of the property grants consent to search the premises.

2. Plain view - this is why I was mentioning the possibility that perhaps they could see evidence of the crime.

3. Search incident to arrest - not sure this one applies here. The police arrived at the home to investigate a crime. At least according to the lawsuit, they did not arrive to arrest Mr. Smith (although that was the result).

4. Exigent circumstances - where evidence could be destroyed or public danger could be a concern if they do not immediately enter. I don't see this being applicable here.You've answered your own question.

jdavionic
04-03-2012, 13:56
You've answered your own question.

Yes.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

RussP
04-03-2012, 15:01
Good!!

jdavionic
04-03-2012, 16:07
Good!!

Yes it is. Perhaps this is common knowledge for many people, but it was news to me. I had a suspicion, which I eluded to earlier. But I didn't know for certain.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Mister_Beefy
04-03-2012, 18:26
If you think that's a "straw man argument" you need to study what a straw man argument is a little more.

I know that's not a straw man argument.

I was anticipating the inevitable straw man argument claim that I always receive, but is never substantiated.



A conclusion without a fact basis is pretty much the definition of "untrue".

page 195 of bren's "internet forum rule book"?



I CLEARLY did not say it doesn't exist - I even discussed when it does exist. That none of my clients have ever lost in court or been found to have engaged in misconduct doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I know cops who have engaged in misconduct, gone to prison, been fired, etc.

ah, so you agree with me.

very good.


He agreed with you...that's weak?

had he agreed with me, he would have said something like "you are correct, police misconduct happens every day"

then possibly added something like

"and we do everything we can to combat it and bring those perpetrators to justice."

but no, he said

"What makes what you said untrue is that you have no direct knowledge of police and their conduct, so you have no basis for your statement."




And here comes your inflammatory trolling statement.To refute Bren's contention about your knowledge, please answer these questions:


truth you disagree with turns into trolling with a wave of your moderator wand.

Can you cite 365 cases of misconduct committed over 365 consecutive days that were successfully prosecuted? If yes, please do so.



heh, so if I say anything on an internet forum, I have to prove it with verifiable accounts from a court of record.

got it. :rofl:

Kingarthurhk
04-06-2012, 17:31
Mr. Beefy, you are to law enforcement as Norske is to religion.

It might be easier if you just developed a macro to copy paste that LEO's are bad repeatedly, and never even have to enjoin the topic.

It is about all you add to such topics anyway.

Mister_Beefy
04-06-2012, 20:32
Mr. Beefy, you are to law enforcement as Norske is to religion.

It might be easier if you just developed a macro to copy paste that LEO's are bad repeatedly, and never even have to enjoin the topic.

It is about all you add to such topics anyway.

oh really?

that's the most pertinint thing you have to say, eh?

sounds so familiar.......

oh yeah, I remember!




if you cannot attack the argument, attack the poster. The classic sign of a defeated argument.

OldCurlyWolf
04-09-2012, 16:18
Yes it is. Perhaps this is common knowledge for many people, but it was news to me. I had a suspicion, which I eluded to earlier. But I didn't know for certain.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Not to be the grammar police but this one tickled my funny bone.

How did you escape your suspicion??:rofl:

I believe the actual word you wanted was the word "Alluded", not "Eluded".

:faint:

jdavionic
04-09-2012, 16:21
Not to be the grammar police but this one tickled my funny bone.

How did you escape your suspicion??:rofl:

I believe the actual word you wanted was the word "Alluded", not "Eluded".

:faint:

:rofl: Okay, it was not easy. That is funny. Busted.