I think where I'm most uncomfortable in all these various discussions, is that there seems to be "guilty until proven innocent" mindset amongst many...not just the law enforcement, but society as well.

 

If one is arrested, and later found not guilty of any crime, that arrest still stays on ones record and can be a detriment if trying to get some jobs/licenses in the future. I certainly wouldn't acquiece just to keep the police from killing me. Don't citizens have the right to at least have done something wrong before getting arrested?

 

The other day, my fiiend Katie in Washington State was at home in bed with her fiance. There was a loud banging on the door and the fiance jumped out of bed, grabbed a baseball bat and shouted "Who's there?!" At that point, the door was kicked in and several police came barreling in. They threw the fiance and Katie on floor, in their underwear, and proceeded to begin to handcuff them. Then, they led them outside and made them stand outside, IN THE COLD, IN THEIR UNDERWEAR, BAREFOOT while they searched their apartment and found nothing. Then, they concluded after about 45 minutes it was a case of mistaken identity and basically said, "oops, my bad". In all of the chaos, Katie's cats escaped the apartment and are still missing after a week.

 

Katie and Doug are pursuing legal action. And they're moving. And the police have given them no reason as to why they burst into their apartment, nor why they cuffed them and made them stand out in the cold with no clothes on while they figured out that they'd screwed up.

 

Horrible story Rockmom. I love the police but am very uncomfortable when they raid houses. To break into people's houses in the middle of the night is just not right except in very rare cases. It can lead to bad situations because the people are startled, frightened and cannot be sure it is police and not criminals.

 

When the police screw up and say they had the wrong address, that is not good enough. They need to compensate your friends here for the damage they did and maybe for the emotional damage as well. Saying my bad is not good enough...

The case is as I stated. There is still lost time from work and related inconveniences and costs. It's just wrong that innocemt people have to go through all this.

 

How do you know it's exactly as you stated?

 

Do you expect police to be perfect?

What recourse do you think they should have? I'm not sure what you expect.

 

If their case is as good as you say it is, I'm sure they will get their attorney fees and more paid for in a lawsuit. I'd be interested in hearing the other side of the story.

 

If it happened as you say, I agree that it is wrong. No one is saying it is okay. However, those incidents are few and far between. It's not like that is happening to everyone.

 

:lol2: It doesn't disturb you that every citizen is presumed guilty? Our whole justice system is based upon the presumption of innocence. But it doesn't seem that those rights kick in until AFTER they've been presumed guilty.

 

You won't likely hear the other side of the story. Heck, Katie anf Doug don't even know the other side of the story. No explanation was ever given.

It's obvious by the way the officers approached him they weren't concerned that he might be armed.

 

None of the officers had their weapons out, and none were prepared to quickly pull their weapons should it turn ugly.

 

What's the harm in talking further? They've got him cornered.

 

If they talk for a few more minutes and he becomes belligerent, they're still in the same position to take him down forcefully.

 

A more patient approach might have worked. It might not have. But we'll never know.

 

1.) You don't know that.

2.) Police don't take their weapons out because they are unsure if someone is armed. Millions of people are arrested every year where the police never unholster their weapons. Those people are still searched afterwards for...weapons.

3.) You didn't answer my question. How long were they there? How long should they talk to him? What if they had been there 20 minutes? Once you are told that you are under arrest, the time for talking is over.

4.) They tried to handcuff him, and he did pulled away. If he had turned around and given them his hands...do you think they would have tackled him to the ground?

5.) How do you know they weren't patient? Do you know something I don't? I'm being serious. How long were they there?

:lol2: It doesn't disturb you that every citizen is presumed guilty? Our whole justice system is based upon the presumption of innocence. But it doesn't seem that those rights kick in until AFTER they've been presumed guilty.

 

You won't likely hear the other side of the story. Heck, Katie anf Doug don't even know the other side of the story. No explanation was ever given.

 

What in God's name are you talking about? Every citizen is presumed guilty based on what, exactly?

 

I'm still waiting to hear your answer though. What recourse should someone have when the police come to arrest them, and they feel like it is an illegal arrest?

 

The other side of the story could be easily obtained by an attorney filing a lawsuit. You said yourself they are seeking legal action, right?

What in God's name are you talking about? Every citizen is presumed guilty based on what, exactly?

 

I'm still waiting to hear your answer though. What recourse should someone have when the police come to arrest them, and they feel like it is an illegal arrest?

 

The other side of the story could be easily obtained by an attorney filing a lawsuit. You said yourself they are seeking legal action, right?

 

They have already begun the process and are procuring the 911 call from an unnamed witness. The recourse? Be a able to find out what the hell is going on and assist the police in rectifying the situation. They weren't even given the opportunity to know why the police had broken into their home. Seems a simple conversation could at least let them know why they were being handcuffed and left to stand in the cold with no clothes or shoes.

 

They have already begun the process and are procuring the 911 call from an unnamed witness. The recourse? Be a able to find out what the hell is going on and assist the police in rectifying the situation. They weren't even given the opportunity to know why the police had broken into their home. Seems a simple conversation could at least let them know why they were being handcuffed and left to stand in the cold with no clothes or shoes.

 

 

So there's more to the story. I was under the impression the police kicked in the door for no reason. There was a 911 call? How do they know that if the police gave them no explanation?

How do you know it's exactly as you stated?

 

Do you expect police to be perfect?

 

No, but if they raid the wrong house or act on incomplete or inaccurate information they should be liable for the victim's expenses without the victim having to take them to court.

 

No, but if they raid the wrong house or act on incomplete or inaccurate information they should be liable for the victim's expenses without the victim having to take them to court.

 

Without court anyone could claim they were wronged and get paid. Who, without court, would determine the validity of the claims??

So there's more to the story. I was under the impression the police kicked in the door for no reason. There was a 911 call? How do they know that if the police gave them no explanation?

 

Did I mention Katie is a friend? I just got an email from her with more info. This all happend at 3am on 12/3. They know there was a 911 call because they got a lawyer who is gathering all the info. Apparentry the call was reporting a "verbal domestic incident".

 

Regardless, why would the police kick in the door of an apartment at 3am if there was no evidence of anything going on? Couldn't they have waited till Doug answere the door?

Without court anyone could claim they were wronged and get paid. Who, without court, would determine the validity of the claims??

 

Wouldn't the fact that there was nothing that they were arrested for be evidence that the police got it wrong?

How do you know it's exactly as you stated?

 

Do you expect police to be perfect?

 

I expect the police to be held accountable for their mistakes just as the rest of the citizens of this country are.

 

Did I mention Katie is a friend? I just got an email from her with more info. This all happend at 3am on 12/3. They know there was a 911 call because they got a lawyer who is gathering all the info. Apparentry the call was reporting a "verbal domestic incident".

 

Regardless, why would the police kick in the door of an apartment at 3am if there was no evidence of anything going on? Couldn't they have waited till Doug answere the door?

 

I don't know. I wasn't there. I've said all along that if they're wrong they should be and probably will be held accountable. Thankfully, they as police officers have the right to defend themselves in court as well just like a normal civilian.

 

I expect the police to be held accountable for their mistakes just as the rest of the citizens of this country are.

 

They are.

 

Wouldn't the fact that there was nothing that they were arrested for be evidence that the police got it wrong?

 

No. Police sometimes act on bad information at no fault of their own, wouldn't you agree? What if your friends husband was inside killing her and they ignored the call...What would you say then?