WI_Red
Redcafes Most Rested
Protect and Serve....nah, just let her die. They really are pointless.
Protect and Serve....nah, just let her die. They really are pointless.
She should have complied and answered her phone. It's her fault she could not get away from her attacked to pick it up.But, as we were just informed, people bring it upon themselves.
Apparently had a gun, but damn…
Apparently had a gun, but damn…
Clearly this went too far but if you are a cop and try to make a valid traffic stop and the guy drives off and runs into his house and doesn't answer, I assume you are allowed to go in and get him. It WAS a simple traffic stop but the driver turned it into much more. Hopefully they had bodycams to see if the force was justified or not.
They obviously feared for their lives as he ran in the opposite direction from them.
That’s murder, plain and simple.
Thank you for this explanation!Well, yes and no. There’s exceptions under “hot pursuit” which would allow warrantless entry under certain exigent circumstances. Now, that being said, in a situation where someone ran a stop sign and didn’t stop when police tried to make a traffic stop would depend on a lot of circumstances. There’s different levels of someone fleeing. In California there’s 2800.1 or 2800.2 depending on if it falls under felony evading or misdemeanor evading. If someone ran a stop sign and then led police on a dangerous chase where he ran more stop signs or red lights, drove wrong way, sped way over the speed limit in neighborhoods etc, then the police could justify warrantless entry under felony evading and being in hot pursuit. On the flip side, you’d have to ask why if someone was driving that dangerously, the police would continue and not cancel the pursuit when all you have is a traffic infraction as the reason for the original stop.
If it only fell under a misdemeanor evading charge, you’d be hard pressed to justify making a forceful entry and not just setting a perimeter and contacting a judge for a warrant. It would take longer, but you’d be covered for forcing your way in. Chances are during the way he may come to his senses anyway and come outside, either by his own choice or his family talking sense into him. Either way, they’d be fine to go in at that point.
As for the beating, you’d be hard pressed to find something to justify that level of beating. If someone is fighting that hard that they needed to be beaten that badly, then you’d be able to transition to other force options that would probably allow some level of compliance to be able to get him into handcuffs. You don’t continue to fight and beat someone just because you can. At some point people have a natural instinct to cross from just resisting arrest by not giving you their hands, to fighting back and defending themselves if they’re being punched in the face and beaten. Unfortunately if that happens, it just leads to more of the same.
Well, yes and no. There’s exceptions under “hot pursuit” which would allow warrantless entry under certain exigent circumstances. Now, that being said, in a situation where someone ran a stop sign and didn’t stop when police tried to make a traffic stop would depend on a lot of circumstances. There’s different levels of someone fleeing. In California there’s 2800.1 or 2800.2 depending on if it falls under felony evading or misdemeanor evading. If someone ran a stop sign and then led police on a dangerous chase where he ran more stop signs or red lights, drove wrong way, sped way over the speed limit in neighborhoods etc, then the police could justify warrantless entry under felony evading and being in hot pursuit. On the flip side, you’d have to ask why if someone was driving that dangerously, the police would continue and not cancel the pursuit when all you have is a traffic infraction as the reason for the original stop.
If it only fell under a misdemeanor evading charge, you’d be hard pressed to justify making a forceful entry and not just setting a perimeter and contacting a judge for a warrant. It would take longer, but you’d be covered for forcing your way in. Chances are during the way he may come to his senses anyway and come outside, either by his own choice or his family talking sense into him. Either way, they’d be fine to go in at that point.
As for the beating, you’d be hard pressed to find something to justify that level of beating. If someone is fighting that hard that they needed to be beaten that badly, then you’d be able to transition to other force options that would probably allow some level of compliance to be able to get him into handcuffs. You don’t continue to fight and beat someone just because you can. At some point people have a natural instinct to cross from just resisting arrest by not giving you their hands, to fighting back and defending themselves if they’re being punched in the face and beaten. Unfortunately if that happens, it just leads to more of the same.
That helps, thank you for that reply. The "beating" part is why I hope their is camera. The end result looks horrible but what if the guy resisted arrest and during the takedown, he cut his head? I would not call that a beating. On the flip side, if the footage shows them doing something other than taking him down (striking him in the head for instance), the Cops need to go to jail.
That helps, thank you for that reply. The "beating" part is why I hope their is camera. The end result looks horrible but what if the guy resisted arrest and during the takedown, he cut his head? I would not call that a beating. On the flip side, if the footage shows them doing something other than taking him down (striking him in the head for instance), the Cops need to go to jail.
Thank you for this explanation!
Spoiler - dog’s totally fine…
About time.
About time.