Clyde: It violates his rights to stop me at a DUI Check point, but doesn't have a problem with police officers jumping private fences and killing dogs they encounter who are defending their turf. Not understanding your logic on this one, Clyde.

 

:idunno:

 

Fair question to ask.

 

Checkpoint: You're stopping me even though I haven't done anything to warrant a stop. You're making me prove I'm innocent. You don't need cause.

 

vs

 

Walking onto one's property and being barred from entering my home to make me prove I'm innocent when you have no reason to suspect me. I am protected in my home. You cannot enter my home without a warrant.

 

It's a clear and easy distinction for me.

Let's remove parts of the arguments and parts of the equation that are immaterial OR that we do not know the legal restrictions.

 

1. We can't say that police are not allowed ON one's property. Police can come on your property to ask you questions. So that general argument is useless.

2. The argument that the dog did what a dog does is immaterial unless I do not know the law. A dog does not have free reign to attack simply because one is on the property of the master. So let's remove that.

3. Because of 2 the police have the right to protect themselves from a dog even if on private property. The legal question that has to be answered is in regards to the officer being in the back yard. As I said in #1 we know that an officer can come onto one's property.

 

So if we all all agree on those 3 points where does that leave us from a responsibility standpoint?

I would also ask in the name of good debate for some of you to try to remove the emotion that is evident and natural. I get that one's pet was killed. The debate cannot be clouded by the fact that a dog who MAY have been attacking an officer was killed.

 

Let's try to stick to a legal debate using what we think (which may prove to be incorrect) to be how the law is written.

How can anyone back what the officer did? Unless he had evidence we aren't aware of , not answering the door isn't a reason to enter private property.

 

As I mentioned above do we know if the law prevents an officer from walking into one's back yard?

Let's remove parts of the arguments and parts of the equation that are immaterial OR that we do not know the legal restrictions.

 

1. We can't say that police are not allowed ON one's property. Police can come on your property to ask you questions. So that general argument is useless.

2. The argument that the dog did what a dog does is immaterial unless I do not know the law. A dog does not have free reign to attack simply because one is on the property of the master. So let's remove that.

3. Because of 2 the police have the right to protect themselves from a dog even if on private property. The legal question that has to be answered is in regards to the officer being in the back yard. As I said in #1 we know that an officer can come onto one's property.

 

So if we all all agree on those 3 points where does that leave us from a responsibility standpoint?

 

It's not immaterial that the backyard was fenced in.

As I mentioned above do we know if the law prevents an officer from walking into one's back yard?

 

He did not walk into the back yard. He scaled a fence to get there. He didn't Ralph into a yard and get attacked. He didn't enter through an unlocked gate. He scaled a fence. The dog was confined there properly. Doesn't some responsibility fall on the officer for not taking the time to look before he leaped. And you also never addressed my point that a grown man had to climb a fence to get in the yard. How was a 3 year old supposed to have gown in there?

I would also ask in the name of good debate for some of you to try to remove the emotion that is evident and natural. I get that one's pet was killed. The debate cannot be clouded by the fact that a dog who MAY have been attacking an officer was killed.

 

Let's try to stick to a legal debate using what we think (which may prove to be incorrect) to be how the law is written.

 

If the dog was attacking the officer, wouldn't that be in the police report? Instead he shot the dog because he "felt threatened". Totally different situations...

It's not immaterial that the backyard was fenced in.

 

Help me out with the double negative here. Which one do you mean:

1. It does not matter that the backyard was fenced in.

2. It does matter that the backyard was fenced in.

It's not immaterial that the backyard was fenced in.

 

Do we know if that matters legally?

If the dog was attacking the officer, wouldn't that be in the police report? Instead he shot the dog because he "felt threatened". Totally different situations...

 

If he didn't say that dog was in an attack mode then he's going to have a tough time justifying his shot. He is going to have to say why he felt threatened.

Help me out with the double negative here. Which one do you mean:

1. It does not matter that the backyard was fenced in.

2. It does matter that the backyard was fenced in.

 

It does matter and thus warrants inclusion in Clyde's list of material facts.

He did not walk into the back yard. He scaled a fence to get there. He didn't Ralph into a yard and get attacked. He didn't enter through an unlocked gate. He scaled a fence. The dog was confined there properly. Doesn't some responsibility fall on the officer for not taking the time to look before he leaped. And you also never addressed my point that a grown man had to climb a fence to get in the yard. How was a 3 year old supposed to have gown in there?

 

 

As I've asked do we know if a fenced back yard is a no-no without a warrant? If so, easy call.

 

The answer to that question from a legal standpoint seems to make your last question/point interesting but of no value.

I think this explains how the police are allowed to go into the yard without a warrant or even enter a home or building...

 

An exigent circumstance, in the criminal procedure law of the United States, allows law enforcement, under certain circumstances, to enter a structure without a search warrant.

 

In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstance means the following:

 

An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.

 

Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts

I think this explains how the police are allowed to go into the yard without a warrant or even enter a home or building...

 

I read that on another site. I'm not sure if that applies here unless they had reason to believe the child was in the house and in danger. Was that ever mentioned in the report?

I think this explains how the police are allowed to go into the yard without a warrant or even enter a home or building...

 

I believe an exigent circumstance would be the scenario I mentioned above - the officer sees a man dragging a child into his home. That's a much higher threshold than a hunch.