U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 07-05-2013, 02:10 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 8,824,230 times
Reputation: 4162

Advertisements

No joke.

Amendment 3: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

That amendment has its roots, obviously, in Revolutionary War days, when the British military did exactly that to many American homes. But it hasn't had much application since then.... except maybe, now.

Some cops wanted to use a guy's house to watch his neighbors in a domestic-violence case. But they apparently wouldn't take "No" for an answer.

Calling a policeman a "soldier" might be a bit of a stretch. But then, considering how these cops were acting, maybe not.

It's noted in the article that one of the complaints, is that the cops didn't show the homeowner a warrant. But by the 3rd amendment, even a warrant shouldn't have mattered. "Soldiers" can't do this, even WITH a warrant, in times of peace. (We are at peace, aren't we?). Only "in time of war", can the gummint, any gummint, make laws to "quarter" them in a private home without the owner's consent.

Sometimes these "stakeouts" can take days, or even weeks. If that's not "quartering", what is?

------------------------------------------------

Courthouse News Service

Police Commandeer Homes, Get Sued

Wednesday, July 03, 2013
Last Update: 10:27 AM PT
by MEGAN GALLEGOS

LAS VEGAS (CN) - Henderson police arrested a family for refusing to let officers use their homes as lookouts for a domestic violence investigation of their neighbors, the family claims in court.

The Mitchell family's claim includes Third Amendment violations, a rare claim in the United States.

"On the morning of July 10th, 2011, officers from the Henderson Police Department responded to a domestic violence call at a neighbor's residence," the Mitchells say in the complaint.

It continues: "At 10:45 a.m. defendant Officer Christopher Worley (HPD) contacted plaintiff Anthony Mitchell via his telephone. Worley told plaintiff that police needed to occupy his home in order to gain a 'tactical advantage' against the occupant of the neighboring house. Anthony Mitchell told the officer that he did not want to become involved and that he did not want police to enter his residence. Although Worley continued to insist that plaintiff should leave his residence, plaintiff clearly explained that he did not intend to leave his home or to allow police to occupy his home. Worley then ended the phone call.

Mitchell claims that defendant officers, including Cawthorn and Worley and Sgt. Michael Waller then "conspired among themselves to force Anthony Mitchell out of his residence and to occupy his home for their own use." (Waller is identified as a defendant in the body of the complaint, but not in the heading of it.)

The complaint continues: "Defendant Officer David Cawthorn outlined the defendants' plan in his official report: 'It was determined to move to 367 Evening Side and attempt to contact Mitchell. If Mitchell answered the door he would be asked to leave. If he refused to leave he would be arrested for Obstructing a Police Officer. If Mitchell refused to answer the door, force entry would be made and Mitchell would be arrested.'"

At a few minutes before noon, at least five defendant officers "arrayed themselves in front of plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's house and prepared to execute their plan," the complaint states. It continues: "The officers banged forcefully on the door and loudly commanded Anthony Mitchell to open the door to his residence.

"Seconds later, officers, including Officer Rockwell, smashed open plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's front door with a metal ram as plaintiff stood in his living room. "As plaintiff Anthony Mitchell stood in shock, the officers aimed their weapons at Anthony Mitchell and shouted obscenities at him and ordered him to lie down on the floor.

"Addressing plaintiff as '*******', officers, including Officer Snyder, shouted conflicting orders at Anthony Mitchell, commanding him to both shut off his phone, which was on the floor in front of his head, and simultaneously commanding him to 'crawl' toward the officers.

Officers then arrested him for obstructing a police officer, searched the house and moved furniture without his permission and set up a place in his home for a lookout, Mitchell says in the complaint.


(Full text of the article, which is really long, can be found at the above URL)
Rate this post positively

 
Old 07-05-2013, 02:40 PM
 
Location: NW Nevada
16,188 posts, read 13,003,076 times
Reputation: 14833
Wow! Interesting. Some judge is going to be pulling his hair out over this one. 3d amendment? Could be. Possibly 4thresulting as well. Does seem a bit overbearing, considering "domestic violence" isn't a provision in the Patriot Act, for a LE agency to exert authority in this manner...or is it? Hell, who knows! This should be one for the legal historians to write about.....
Rate this post positively
 
Old 07-05-2013, 02:49 PM
 
4,130 posts, read 4,081,240 times
Reputation: 3041
Firstly, police are the military (militia/armed forces/national guard). That's not something in question.

Why in the hell would they need a command post in that specific house for a simple domestic violence call? That doesn't make any sense. If there is physical evidence and a complaint, they take the person to jail. If there is no evidence the person leaves the situation and persues it as they decide. Plus if there are 4 other houses around it...what would be the point of taking one house a quarter mile away? It's kind of hard to hide doing this near the target.

They certainly are not going to let an abuse victim get beat on for a little as they run a quarter mile to save them. Plus, if that person has a gun or knife they have the possiblity of taking a hostage...even killing them in the heat of the moment. I've helped people in abusive situations where they want out, the cops don't do that.

Who gets a court date in 2 days ...let alone say the officer were "let off without discipline"? Why haven't the lawyers commented? Why hasn't the department responded?

This whole thing has crazy town written all over it. Cranks love to do all sorts of press releases and things in an absolute rush, because when the truth finally comes out after a real investigation it almost never supports their crazy ass claims.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 07-05-2013, 03:05 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 8,824,230 times
Reputation: 4162
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmeraldCityWanderer View Post
Why in the hell would they need a command post in that specific house for a simple domestic violence call?
They didn't, and they never said they did.

Read.

Reading is key.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 07-05-2013, 03:15 PM
 
1,614 posts, read 1,859,077 times
Reputation: 804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
No joke.

Amendment 3: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

That amendment has its roots, obviously, in Revolutionary War days, when the British military did exactly that to many American homes. But it hasn't had much application since then.... except maybe, now.

Some cops wanted to use a guy's house to watch his neighbors in a domestic-violence case. But they apparently wouldn't take "No" for an answer.

Calling a policeman a "soldier" might be a bit of a stretch. But then, considering how these cops were acting, maybe not.

It's noted in the article that one of the complaints, is that the cops didn't show the homeowner a warrant. But by the 3rd amendment, even a warrant shouldn't have mattered. "Soldiers" can't do this, even WITH a warrant, in times of peace. (We are at peace, aren't we?). Only "in time of war", can the gummint, any gummint, make laws to "quarter" them in a private home without the owner's consent.

Sometimes these "stakeouts" can take days, or even weeks. If that's not "quartering", what is?

------------------------------------------------

Courthouse News Service

Police Commandeer Homes, Get Sued

Wednesday, July 03, 2013
Last Update: 10:27 AM PT
by MEGAN GALLEGOS

LAS VEGAS (CN) - Henderson police arrested a family for refusing to let officers use their homes as lookouts for a domestic violence investigation of their neighbors, the family claims in court.

The Mitchell family's claim includes Third Amendment violations, a rare claim in the United States.

"On the morning of July 10th, 2011, officers from the Henderson Police Department responded to a domestic violence call at a neighbor's residence," the Mitchells say in the complaint.

It continues: "At 10:45 a.m. defendant Officer Christopher Worley (HPD) contacted plaintiff Anthony Mitchell via his telephone. Worley told plaintiff that police needed to occupy his home in order to gain a 'tactical advantage' against the occupant of the neighboring house. Anthony Mitchell told the officer that he did not want to become involved and that he did not want police to enter his residence. Although Worley continued to insist that plaintiff should leave his residence, plaintiff clearly explained that he did not intend to leave his home or to allow police to occupy his home. Worley then ended the phone call.

Mitchell claims that defendant officers, including Cawthorn and Worley and Sgt. Michael Waller then "conspired among themselves to force Anthony Mitchell out of his residence and to occupy his home for their own use." (Waller is identified as a defendant in the body of the complaint, but not in the heading of it.)

The complaint continues: "Defendant Officer David Cawthorn outlined the defendants' plan in his official report: 'It was determined to move to 367 Evening Side and attempt to contact Mitchell. If Mitchell answered the door he would be asked to leave. If he refused to leave he would be arrested for Obstructing a Police Officer. If Mitchell refused to answer the door, force entry would be made and Mitchell would be arrested.'"

At a few minutes before noon, at least five defendant officers "arrayed themselves in front of plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's house and prepared to execute their plan," the complaint states. It continues: "The officers banged forcefully on the door and loudly commanded Anthony Mitchell to open the door to his residence.

"Seconds later, officers, including Officer Rockwell, smashed open plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's front door with a metal ram as plaintiff stood in his living room. "As plaintiff Anthony Mitchell stood in shock, the officers aimed their weapons at Anthony Mitchell and shouted obscenities at him and ordered him to lie down on the floor.

"Addressing plaintiff as '*******', officers, including Officer Snyder, shouted conflicting orders at Anthony Mitchell, commanding him to both shut off his phone, which was on the floor in front of his head, and simultaneously commanding him to 'crawl' toward the officers.

Officers then arrested him for obstructing a police officer, searched the house and moved furniture without his permission and set up a place in his home for a lookout, Mitchell says in the complaint.


(Full text of the article, which is really long, can be found at the above URL)
the 3rd amendment has only been incorporated in the second circuit...
Rate this post positively
 
Old 07-05-2013, 03:24 PM
 
Location: Minnesota
1,723 posts, read 1,492,305 times
Reputation: 2425
There is either way more to this story that isn't being reported.....or the police overstepped their bounds by a country mile.

Law enforcement is getting scary these days....it seems they can do about anythink they like and if you protest using your constitutional rights....you're deemed a "threat" and they manhandle and arrest you.

Like I said, unless there is way more to this story than is being reported in this article, the police are out of control. I hope this guy prevails in his lawsuit against the police dept.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 07-05-2013, 03:29 PM
 
20,194 posts, read 21,553,888 times
Reputation: 9234
I think it is quite a stretch to include the police but what about Dept of Homeland Security, CIA, NSA, or any other organization that cooperates in military strategy? Interesting, should they be labeled as soldiers? On that matter, why do we need these organizations when we already have the FBI...
Rate this post positively
 
Old 07-05-2013, 03:34 PM
 
79,585 posts, read 37,703,977 times
Reputation: 16233
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasper1372 View Post
There is either way more to this story that isn't being reported.....or the police overstepped their bounds by a country mile.

Law enforcement is getting scary these days....it seems they can do about anythink they like and if you protest using your constitutional rights....you're deemed a "threat" and they manhandle and arrest you.

Like I said, unless there is way more to this story than is being reported in this article, the police are out of control. I hope this guy prevails in his lawsuit against the police dept.
One thing we have to keep in perspective is that in any given day there are hundreds of thousands of actions by the police that are legitimate.

I imagine 50 years ago there would have been stories about the police stepping over the line if there had been a way to get the information out like there is today.

That said, when something as wrong as this does happen it should be fully exposed. We can only comment on what is provided and as far as what has been provided I also hope the homeowner prevails.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 07-05-2013, 03:43 PM
 
4,130 posts, read 4,081,240 times
Reputation: 3041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
They didn't, and they never said they did.

Read.

Reading is key.
Quote:
Henderson police arrested a family for refusing to let officers use their homes as lookouts for a domestic violence investigation of their neighbors, the family claims in court.
Yes, reading certainly is the key....if you miss the first sentence of what you posted
Rate this post positively
 
Old 07-05-2013, 04:12 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 8,824,230 times
Reputation: 4162
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmeraldCityWanderer View Post
Yes, reading certainly is the key....if you miss the first sentence of what you posted
Thanks for agreeing that the ploice never said they needed a "command post".

(In our next installment, the leftist will backpedal like mad and try to tell us there's no difference between an "lookout" and a "command post".... )
Rate this post positively
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top