Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Searching for a 3-year-old that is missing from a few doors down is a valid reason to search nearby backyards.
It is not legal for police to just enter property unless they have reason to think a crime was committed. This is basic law 101. Additionally, if a property owner is present, and it appears they were, the officer must identify themselves as police officers and are supposed to obtain consent except in a very few circumstances, like domestic violence.
So unless you are now claiming the officer had reason to think the child was kidnapped and held on their SPECIFIC property he is not legally allowed to conduct a search of their propery without either a warrant or their consent.
Finally, the proof is on the fact the department offered a settlement. If it was a completely lawful act, meaning not only did the officer thing they were in eminent harm BUT ALSO that they had lawfully entered the premises, there would be no settlement as it establishes a precedent that others could use to demand similar settlements. Therefore the department also recognizes the mistake that was made here. A serious one at that, the officer had no lawful reason to be where he was and thus is at least partially to blame.
Btw, a little debate 101 while we are at it. Saying something over and over does not make it true. You are the one resorting to emotional arguments, playing on an emotional response of a lost child who wasn't even lost. This is cold hard fact in thus case. It was not a lawful entry to the property therefore the officer is responsible for the loss of property. And for the last time, statistics, not emotions, tell us toddlers who are reported "lost" are most often found in their own home. There was no reason to search anywhere until the home, including the basement was searched. If the officer followed the law and basic protocol, this would not have happened.
I'm guessing you aren't because, by definition, "periodic" means that you aren't watching them the whole time, and it only takes a few seconds for a child to get up and walk away.
In 10 seconds that child could be down the hall. You look up and the child is gone and you walk into the wrong room to look for him, and he's even further away. You go to the next room, and the child is further.
All it takes is someone making the mistake of not shutting a door all the way and 15 seconds for a child like this to be outside and in danger.
You can pretend all you want that a parent can know where a child is 100% of the time, but that is not reality.
If you want to debate this, we can open a little poll in the parenting section to see how many actual parents believe it's not uncommon to lose track of a 3-year-old for a minute or two in your own home. In minute or two, the child could be outside if the wrong situation, through human error, occurs.
This is an example of an emotional response.
Because logic tells us, that even though we may lose track of a child, they are found 9 out of 10 times in their own homes. Immediately panicking that they are in the "wrong situation" is an emotional, not rational response.
Additionally, claiming that such a response is an acceptable reason to illegal enter private property and destroy private property is extending that emotional response to a completely irrational level. For example if you took the word child and inserted adult, maybe even an adult with mental defects, into the story, the response would have been different. Why? Because of a difference in EMOTION. "Lost child" elicits a different response on an emotional level than "lost" anything else.
I do find it funny that some of you believe I'm being irrational or over emotional on this issue when many of you actually say you are physically watching your kids 24/7. You believe if a 3-year-old goes missing, cops shouldn't search the surrounding yards. You believe that dogs have the same value as people. You believe that if anybody makes a mistake that ends in the death of a dog, they should be severely punished.
It certainly demonstrates you can't get past your emotions when you see this dead dog and think, "Oh my God, what happens when the cops start breaking into my home and shooting my dog only for laughs because they think it's funny."
Clearly, you are the one emotionally invested in this matter as evidenced by the above post. You can't see the facts for what they are and admit that this officer was clearly in the wrong.
Let me ask you, since you are so focused on LTTP's parental status - do you have children?
Isn't it hard to imagine your three year old taking a nap IN YOUR HOUSE and you not know their whereabouts? Most parents would find this hard to swallow.
It is not legal for police to just enter property unless they have reason to think a crime was committed.
Go back a few pages to the PDF document listing all the different court cases talking about exigent circumstances, and you will see that you are wrong on that. The primary goal of warrants is to prevent the state (police) from "fishing" for evidence to use. Warrants will ask for cause and for things being specifically searched for in order to limit these "fishing trips", and in most cases, any evidence found that are outside the scope of the warrant will not be allowed to be entered in evidence.
Searching for a 3-year-old is quite different than searching for a "crime". Now, if the cops found the 3-year-old dead in that backyard due to the owner murdering him, there is a very strong chance no evidence found would be allowed to be used in a trial.
Because logic tells us, that even though we may lose track of a child, they are found 9 out of 10 times in their own homes. Immediately panicking that they are in the "wrong situation" is an emotional, not rational response.
Additionally, claiming that such a response is an acceptable reason to illegal enter private property and destroy private property is extending that emotional response to a completely irrational level. For example if you took the word child and inserted adult, maybe even an adult with mental defects, into the story, the response would have been different. Why? Because of a difference in EMOTION. "Lost child" elicits a different response on an emotional level than "lost" anything else.
Please highlight in the post your were replying to where "panic" was anywhere in there. I'm not talking about the word, I'm talking about a panic situation.
Clearly, you are the one emotionally invested in this matter as evidenced by the above post. You can't see the facts for what they are and admit that this officer was clearly in the wrong.
Let me ask you, since you are so focused on LTTP's parental status - do you have children?
Isn't it hard to imagine your three year old taking a nap IN YOUR HOUSE and you not know their whereabouts? Most parents would find this hard to swallow.
Yes, I am a parent. Yes, I can imagine not knowing the whereabouts of a 3-year-old that is asleep wrapped in a blanket, under a box in the basement.
BTW, do you believe the parents of the 3-year-old and cop didn't search or that it would be good practical joke?
Unfortunately I don't, but my 2 cents for what it's worth (completely nothing)...
1. No, a dog does not have the value of a human, whether a cop or a child, technically. No. That doesn't mean a cop should have cart blanche to casually shoot one. Whether viewed as a family member, or property, or something in between, the owner should have some reasonable expectation that an armed thug won't intrude onto his property and destroy his animal at any time with or without a "reason." If this is OK because "circumstances," then any time a cop wants to take a dump on your rights, all they've got to do is cry "circumstances" and it's ok. So, you have no rights. (More true than any American wants to think, and there's a great George Carlin video about our so-called "rights." But I digress.)
2. There is a VERY DISTURBING TREND of news showing cops shooting dogs when they didn't need to, using unnecessary force against humans up to and including killing them, and abusing their power in general. Whether it's really happening more often than it ever did in the past, or whether we're just getting more news about it now is a question I can't answer. I still find it utterly unacceptable. I want to believe in the principles our nation was founded on, and citizens shouldn't be bullied or oppressed by police. The worst part about it is the callous disregard shown by their organizations, the dismissals of wrongdoing, the "paid administrative leave"...the fact that the institution had no problem with fascist jackboot tactics gives "good cops" (which exist, I've met some!) a bad name. When the people inherently hate and fear the cops, it will make the job much, MUCH harder for a good cop with good intentions. I don't know why the dept.s can't seem to understand this, and continue to excuse or even defend this behavior...
3. I salute anyone in this day and age who says that money isn't enough, and policy change is needed, because it is. Cops need better training on appropriate use of force, and in particular (evidently) how to deal with dogs. If meter readers and postmen can go into yards with dogs and carry only mace, or nothing, and don't have to fire guns to deal with them, then cops can too. If the many people I know can go to dog parks and walking trails with no fear of the many dogs there off-leash, then cops can be trained to deal with dogs without immediately taking the attitude of either "I don't have time for this" and putting a bullet in them, or getting their jollies by whipping out their piece and dispensing some brutality, which I'm afraid is too often the case. At a minimum, if this department can't admit that this cop was wrong, they need to admit that the system is wrong, and make some changes to the training. And those who are in any way victims of this issue need to stand up and demand it, or it will get worse and worse. Because the people are getting defensive...the more defensive the civilians are, the more offensive the police will get...this violence will continue to escalate in society unless action is taken.
This is a small instance of a much, much bigger problem.
Unfortunately I don't, but my 2 cents for what it's worth (completely nothing)...
1. No, a dog does not have the value of a human, whether a cop or a child, technically. No. That doesn't mean a cop should have cart blanche to casually shoot one. Whether viewed as a family member, or property, or something in between, the owner should have some reasonable expectation that an armed thug won't intrude onto his property and destroy his animal at any time with or without a "reason." If this is OK because "circumstances," then any time a cop wants to take a dump on your rights, all they've got to do is cry "circumstances" and it's ok. So, you have no rights. (More true than any American wants to think, and there's a great George Carlin video about our so-called "rights." But I digress.)
But they offered him ten grand though...
Quote:
2. There is a VERY DISTURBING TREND of news showing cops shooting dogs when they didn't need to, using unnecessary force against humans up to and including killing them, and abusing their power in general. Whether it's really happening more often than it ever did in the past, or whether we're just getting more news about it now is a question I can't answer. I still find it utterly unacceptable. I want to believe in the principles our nation was founded on, and citizens shouldn't be bullied or oppressed by police. The worst part about it is the callous disregard shown by their organizations, the dismissals of wrongdoing, the "paid administrative leave"...the fact that the institution had no problem with fascist jackboot tactics gives "good cops" (which exist, I've met some!) a bad name. When the people inherently hate and fear the cops, it will make the job much, MUCH harder for a good cop with good intentions. I don't know why the dept.s can't seem to understand this, and continue to excuse or even defend this behavior...
And in all those DISTURBING CASES were the dog owners offered ten grand? Nope.
Quote:
3. I salute anyone in this day and age who says that money isn't enough, and policy change is needed, because it is. Cops need better training on appropriate use of force, and in particular (evidently) how to deal with dogs. If meter readers and postmen can go into yards with dogs and carry only mace, or nothing, and don't have to fire guns to deal with them, then cops can too. If the many people I know can go to dog parks and walking trails with no fear of the many dogs there off-leash, then cops can be trained to deal with dogs without immediately taking the attitude of either "I don't have time for this" and putting a bullet in them, or getting their jollies by whipping out their piece and dispensing some brutality, which I'm afraid is too often the case. At a minimum, if this department can't admit that this cop was wrong, they need to admit that the system is wrong, and make some changes to the training. And those who are in any way victims of this issue need to stand up and demand it, or it will get worse and worse. Because the people are getting defensive...the more defensive the civilians are, the more offensive the police will get...this violence will continue to escalate in society unless action is taken.
This is a small instance of a much, much bigger problem.
Salute all you want, he doesn't get to force a policy change in this manner. This is not a slippery slope or a violence begats violence sort of thing. Stuff happens sometimes. Oh yeah, dem duckets...so they did admit they were wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
