Cops Illegally Enter Woman's Home and Arrest Her After She Told Them To Leave

Yah just got to love Texas laws.

 

Yeah, there is a law that's in place, it's called the 4th & 5th amendment to the Constitution. Of which, protects all US citizens from unreasonable searches & seizures while giving all US citizens the ability to not be a witness against themselves.

Pull up any law you want, that's been in place since July 2nd, 1776, trumps anything you can provide.

I just told how I'm claiming otherwise. If there was no crime committed, you have no legal authority to obtain any information from me. What you wish to submit to is a police state. I'd rather deal with this democratically and fight for my rights not to show anybody my information, unless I've committed a crime.

No it's not, you just don't understand the founding principles to this country and which to point to a law and say 'See, this gives them legal authority'. Remember, there was laws that were enacted that said slavery was legal, are you going to defend that as well?

Police asking who is was is all fine and dandy. However, your definition of 'search' is a lot different than my definition. If you ask for identification, you're searching the individual for information. By asking for her ID, the officer broke her 4th amendment right. In return, breaking her 5th amendment, by being a witness against herself.

It's not whose fruity, I'm afraid, it's those who believe some 'law' is the end result.

 

Yeah...unfortunately it doesn't bode well for you.

Well, here's the difference, I know that no law will ever protect me from some unknown force. If a criminal wishes to come in, rape my daughter & wife, lock us all up, steal everything of worth from my house, and then leave. What am I going to say 'Stop, the law says you're not allowed to rape my family or steal anything from me' and expect them to just leave? Again, your alias is befitting you.

No, what I have is the equalizer at my house that will ensure my rights are protected. I don't submit to no law because I know it provides no protection for me. However, I have other things that will protect my family, if someone attempts to do any harm to them.

Yes, I'm sure that's exactly what everyone in Germany said when the Nazi's came in as well. 'Just submit yourself to them, everything will work out in the end'.

Again, I'm sure that's what everyone in Germany said as well. It's statements like that have caused the destruction in this world, let alone this country.

It's called 'civil disobedience'. If I don't like a law, by being civilly disobedient, I'm enacting my right of free speech. Since I don't believe giving information to a cop, without committing a crime, is warranted, then I don't submit to that law. You can ask someone for information all day long, no one has any legal authority to enforce those type of laws, as the 4th & 5th amendment protects the US citizens in that case.

Again, slavery was legal. Are you telling me that if you lived in those times that you would submit to the laws and either own a slave or give the slave(s) back to the original owners, because it was law? I can stand firm and tell you that I wouldn't and read up on how to truly free the slaves, during those times. I would be one of the ones who would buy their freedom, if I couldn't abolish it legislatively. What would you do? Submit to the law, I'm sure.

It's called "Being Informed". Something that's desperately missing in this world.

 

There's a vast difference between 'protection of the law' and 'police stopping criminals'. Firstly, there is no protection under any law that can give me sanctuary from any criminals. Laws are there to provide legal means to protect my rights. If someone steals something from me, then I have legal authority to go after them. Not through my own vindictive intiatives, but through legal courts.

Your last statement is just ridiculous. None of those, on this thread, who disagree with this issue, are saying we have an excuse for doing anything. If it's a civil disobedient act, that's our way of enacting our right to free speech. There's no excuse behind it, it's our way of saying we don't like the law. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

This isn't about anything else but giving freedom & rights back every US citizen. If you want to submit to law, North Korea & China is calling you. I'm sure they'll love more obedient citizens.

 

Then by all means, challenge it. But the fact still remains that if a police officer asks you to identify yourself, and you refuse, you go to jail because you are violating the law. Don't like it? Too bad. Blabber about constitution? Too bad. Cry and whine? Too bad. You'll still be in jail. Thanks for playing, have nice day, see you at the bail hearing.

Thats nice. Again, challenge it in court. Good luck.

And it was challenged. The current law was challenged. Go ahead and challenge it again if you wish. But you made a statement that there is no law that a person has to identify themselves to police. That is false. Period.

You claim that. But no one else does, and the court doesn't. You, and law breakers like you, say it means 'x' but you are alone on that. Everyone else does not.

 

Then I guess this man got a 'Get Out Of Jail' free card when he didn't hand his drivers license over to the police: http://mobile.wnd.com/2013/07/license-checkpoint-not-for-1-driver/

Thanks for playing, have a nice day, and I'll see you when you wake up from your dream.

Don't have to, Supreme Court won't even touch it. So, as the above man did, and so many like him as well, we'll continue pressing the point.

Again, above is the same thing. Virginia says it's law, Supreme Court says they won't touch it, the man was still let go without being locked up. So your statement of 'if a police officer asks you to identify yourself, and you refuse, you go to jail because you are violating the law' is false, period.

Yes, lump everyone else into your 'collective' way of thinking. I'm fairly certain that this isn't the abnormal. Submitting to a law, yeah, that's the abnormal.

However, I've already given you an article, there's several more at this thread, that's been piling up. Feel free to look around.

 

How? Do you really think your opinion of me personally has any effect on me whatsoever? (psst: You are not that important) All that matters is that I like it. When, or if, your opinion of me personally ever has any value to me, I will be sure to let you know. Otherwise you can assume it does not.

Oh, so your a jerk now? That is your best argument? To be a jerk? Oh wait, you wanted me to give you a honest response to your statments, while being a jerk? Sorry, that's not how this is played. If you want me to actually read your post, you have to be a decent, worthwhile poster. If in stead you are going to be a high school level sarcastic snot, then I'm just going to laugh, call you what you are, and ignore the rest of your post.

If you want to not be ignored and discredited as a jerk... next time, grow up. Some of us had parents that taught us how to treat others.

It's called "Being Decent". Something that's desperately missing in this world.

- - - Updated - - -

They ran his tags, and saw he had a valid license, and let him go, by choice.

Legally they could have arrested him for refusing. And legally they could issue a warrant for his arrest. Apparently they have chosen not to. But the fact remains, under the law, they could have arrested him, and sent him to jail.

 

All of that doesn't really matter to me. You can assume as much.

That's because you have nothing to rebut on the argument. I can say whatever I want, it still doesn't refute the point I made. However, you've already given me your honest assessment to my statements. Although, I already know that nothing I say will change you mind, so why continue to insist on you actually caring what I say?

See, people will always show their true colors, if you push the right buttons. You've clearly shown yours fairly easily.

Ignore me all you want, someone can still be a "jerk", but not be discredited because of it. The reality is I already knew that you wouldn't change your opinion, but continued to ignore all of my points. Law's law to you, nothing else will change that. So I gave you arguments based upon that stance, and you ignored them, as I expected.

So your rebuttal will now be that I'm a jerk, I had bad parents because they didn't teach me how to 'treat others', it's the same rhetoric that folks give when they have no valid response. In yet, I'm the jerk? Yeah...try answering if you would submit to the laws of slavery by either being one, owning one, or giving the slaves back to the original owners, because it was law? I won't hold my breath for a response...

Yeah, practice what you preach, and it'll come back two fold. I call you out on something and then you take offense to something that you embrace? No, I'm sorry, but I've had very decent conversations with people on this board, in life, and other boards. It's only when it comes time to calling a spade a spade when it becomes a reality for them.

Then it would've went to court and got thrown out. The whole point I'm getting is because it's law, doesn't just make it so. If you wish to stand on that principle, then so be it. Nothing I say, do, or however I wish to approach it will make you change your opinion. So, we're at a stalemate. Why should I continue going that route when I know it leads to a dead end?

The things I've learned in life is by breaking them down logically and systematically. If it doesn't make sense to me, logically, then the system must be the cause of it. Then, by looking at how the system is operating, there you can see where the root of the problem is. I don't believe because a law is a law, that it's final & binding. Thus, by handing the officer the license, the officer is breaking the 4th amendment, and the individual is giving up his 5th. Whether you care to address that point or not, that's up to you.

Discredit me because I'm a jerk, but you can't discredit me because it's wrong.

 

Done.

Now to everyone else on this thread, this right here is why I am not a libertarian, and don't support Ron Paul. Although I agree with Paul on 99% of the issues, his supporters have consistently been arrogant self-absorbed jerks. Every single time, this is what I get. Complete a!!holes, every single one of them.

It's always ironic that libertarians always wonder why their movement never gains any traction, and everyone dismisses them as loony.... of course it can't be because they are all jerks, and no one cares what a jerk says about anything, right or wrong.

Fact of life: A jerk who is 'right' is still just a jerk. A jerk who makes a point, is still just a jerk. And no matter what point you make, or how right you might be, the moment you are a jerk, everyone will ignore you and dismiss your points, because.... YOU ARE BEING A JERK. Why is this so hard for libertarians to grasp, I don't know.

Good bye jerk. You are ignored, and I'll never read another one of your posts again for the rest of my life. Bye bye.

 

Did you tug your forelock as you typed that? How does jackboot polish taste?

 

Just because you don't like what someone is telling you, doesn't automatically make them something you wish to deem them. The problem is, you can't admit that I'm right, in anything that I've said. So what do you do? Call me a jerk and put me on ignore. Sad, really.

What's the most telling out of all of this, your actions speak louder than your words.

 

Their quote says it all. They'd much rather have total disarmament than any type of civil society.

Talking to someone like that just proves that they'll roll over and submit, like an obedient lap dog. Hence why I'm the jerk and put on ignore, lol.

 

Incorrect on ALL counts.

First of all, if a suspect gives police a reason to believe that a crime was committed somewhere they don't need a warrant to search that place. It's called probable cause.

Second of all, when you come into contact with police, whether you did anything wrong or not has NOTHING to do with identifying yourself when asked. EVERY state has a law called stop and identify which says this.

 

Once again, INCORRECT

learn the law if you wish to debate it. You have NO clue.

Understand that your OPINION that the law is wrong is noted, but the facts are that the laws are what they are. You DO have to identify yourself to police when asked. Even if you believe they have no reason to be at your house.

The reasoning for this is simple. Whether they have a warrant or reasonable cause to enter without a warrant they are required BY LAW to make every reasonable effort to notify the OWNER of the property when making entry.

 

"The incident occurred a few days after Limon’s former boyfriend had been arrested and charged with committing a string of armed robberies.
Authorities said deputies came to the apartment as part of a follow-up investigation into the robberies, and added that the suspect’s stolen vehicle had been witnessed parked near Limon’s home earlier in the week."

since when does "libertarianism" mean protecting armed robbers?

 

Ah last time I checked America ascribed to Western law traditions, which include the idea of innocent till proven guilty. its strange how this little fact always tends to be pushed aside when flashy media reports entice viewers to make up their minds before the facts have been fully given and tried by the courts. The woman in question did not commit a crime in my opinion, if anything the officers failed miserably in their investigative efforts and decided to vent their frustration on this woman when she refused their requests for identification. The omission to provide her identity to the officers is laughable compared to the gross misconduct of the officers in question concerning overstepping their legal limits; law enforcement is simply that; to enforce the law, not to be a law unto themselves, or when they don't like the response from "ungrateful" private citizens.

 

Unless, you, of course, declare guilt or innocence based on only part of the evidence.

The police came to the door, in uniform, identified themselves and their purpose for being there and asked for identification of the adults present to ensure they were questioning the right person(s). Now at this point the person being questioned can:

Provide the identification
or
Refuse to provide the identification at which point the po9lice can arrest for

Obstruction
Impeding
and, once arrested, refusal to identify is a crime known as
resisting arrest w/o violence.

You're coming down on the side of someone who may have aided in the commission of one or more armed robberies.

I'd choose a better ally.

 

Once again someone doesn't understand that facts are facts and opinions are opinions.

It IS illegal not to identify yourself when police ask you to do so, PERIOD. So , the woman DID commit a crime when she refused to identify herself.

Take this for example.

A man is beating his wife and the neighbors call the cops. By the time the cops show up all is quit, cops knock on the door anyway, they guy answers the door and tells them to (*)(*)(*)(*) off and slams the door in their faces.

Is he in the right? Of course not.

 

this woman wasn't rude to them, she just told them to leave her property. And why is the man in the wrong! Because he tells them to get lost, its his home, his private property and so technically he should have the right to decide who has access to it and who doesn't, including the cops, and if anything he should have the right to ask who they are, since they are on his property. If you think there's a problem, produce a search warrant and then go from there, but anything lesser smacks of arrogance. Oh go on then keep claiming that she broke the law because she refused to identify herself, a lesser evil highlighted despite a greater injustice carried out, perhaps the judge might see it this way and restore sanity

 

Did you actually just opine that a man ought to be able to beat his wife on his own property then tell the cops to get lost if they show up to investigate? LOL

 

Now I see why I stopped posting on this board...

Firstly, if the cop had probable cause the girlfriend was involved, that's what a warrant is for. Don't have one, you don't enter, simple as that. Secondly, not every state has that law in place. I'd suggest you learn that before deciding to jump into a thread several months later, as obviously you're the one without a clue.

In Maryland, there's no statutes that say someone has to identify themselves, without first having to be accused of a crime. However, considering that most cops don't even know the law they're there to uphold & serve, they'll arrest you because you didn't obey their commands. This is basically the entire premise of these threads. I've still been reading about how cops are being negligent (As I'm sure you heard about that wonderful comment the cop in Chicago made, how about the woman who had her right orbital broken after cops beat her up during a DUI stop), but I'm sure you don't care.

For your other post, my opinion isn't wrong, but continue to believe that's the case. I can show you countless videos of individuals not identifying themselves and not getting arrested. Are you going to tell me that the cops let a criminal go and that we should have them do an all out man hunt to find him? Or, even better, should they be on the look out for him, if they see him again?

Ok, your last statement has nothing to do with any of this, but I'm willing to address it. Sure they're required by law to identify themselves and let folks know who they are. It still doesn't mean that any one should let them into their house. If they don't have a warrant, there's no legal obligation to allow them into your house. Come back with a warrant, you can come in. The way I look at it is like this, they're the vampires and they have to be invited in. Unless they can figure out a way around that (IE: Search warrant), go to the next house, because you can't legally come into the house unless they're invited in.

Thus, the woman had every right to ask the cops to leave her house, because they had no legal authority to be there. Sure, claim that they're following up on the case, all fine and dandy. It still doesn't mean that she has to help them. Until they can gather evidence that she was involved with the crimes her boyfriend committed, then she has no legal reason to help them with the investigation. People are ingrained with this thought that as soon as the cops come around, do whatever they say, they're your master. It's time to break that mold, conhog, whether you like it or not.

 

The probable cause was on the property not the person. You don't get to commit crimes on another person's property and then have that property protected from search by claiming it's not your property LOL try using common sense.

And the police have EVERY right to identify everyone who is at a location that they are investigating.

If you don't want to be wrong, I'd suggest you go back to not posting.

 

I live in Ohio also, and our Stop and Identify law, per Hiibel, does not mandate a crime/offense to have been committed, only a reasonable suspicion it was, is, or about to be.

 

A person need not have to ID themselves simply because they answered a door and were asked to do so.

 

I have to respectfully disagree. Terry addressed a detention on less then PC and also the right to search for weapons without a warrant, facts related.

Hiibel set the record straight on S&I statutes and the criminalization aspect of them. POST Terry, PRE Hiibel, was Brown v. Texas;


Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable." Cf. Terry v. Ohio,