Far be it for an attorney to stretch the truth when filing a suit...

 

You throw a bunch of mud against the wall and see what sticks.

While I understand why some of you feel the need to defend the LE and say let's wait and see . Let both sides come out. Many of you jump to quickly to other side and refuse to believe anything said against LE. I don't always agree with UKM but he has made a few good points.

 

If a few things in the claims are true I feel LE should be punished. But I'm not jumping to any conclusions on either side I do need to see more for me to believe either side. It's also why I like body cameras it would defuse a lot of the he said she said.

 

I don't like the idea of cops arresting people on their property if they don't touch the officers. If the mother did , then the arrest is warranted. I would hope the officers show some restraint even if the mother was yelling , which we don't know if she was. Most mothers are going to be emotional when their child is arrested. If the father was in his home again arresting him sounds disturbing.

 

If I answered the door I would of handled it differently . I would of been a lot more vague and calm asking the officers questions. I respect LE always but I also respect my rights. They don't know your son is their so if your calm and ask the right questions a decent cop will show you the paperwork. Let's be honest while a cop may not have to show paperwork if they were respectful which again I don't know if they were. But if they were a cop just to keep the situation calm is going to show the parents paperwork.

 

 

Again I'm not judging either side I need more , but those automatically jumping to defend LE. If you don't want people automatically judging LE then you need to do the same for these people. Otherwise the cycle continues.

I can not think of any law stating the police have to tell a 24 year olds mommy why he's being arrested. Can't think of one that says they have to tell her the truth either.

 

Since they are "the law," it seems telling the truth should be a really big part of it. There are standards to uphold and all.

Since they are "the law," it seems telling the truth should be a really big part of it. There are standards to uphold and all.

 

They have no obligation to tell her anything. That was my point.

They have no obligation to tell her anything. That was my point.

 

Seems like that should be more of an issue. Officers of the law should be telling the truth. If that's not policy, it makes it hard to accept what they say.

Seems like that should be more of an issue. Officers of the law should be telling the truth. If that's not policy, it makes it hard to accept what they say.

 

I'd say the issue isn't as black and white as you want it to be. Either way, it's irrelevant to this discussion because as far as i know, they did nothing illegal IF they lied to the mom.

I'd say the issue isn't as black and white as you want it to be. Either way, it's irrelevant to this discussion because as far as i know, they did nothing illegal IF they lied to the mom.

 

Forgive me if I'd like my officers of the law to be invested in the truth. Sorry that's a problem.

Do you think police walk around with copies of every single warrant ever issued?

 

I've never really thought about it but it makes sense that they do not. I expect down the road they will have some type of iPad device where they can call it up if needed.

Forgive me if I'd like my officers of the law to be invested in the truth. Sorry that's a problem.

 

No one said police are walking around making up stories to anyone and everyone. That would be the media.

 

You keep saying the same thing and ignoring what I'm saying, so I'll move on.

I'm simply asking questions to determine what issues the officers could be facing IF the events happened as described in post #1.

 

Are officers allowed to lie about why they're arresting someone?

 

Is asking to see a warrant really considered interfering with an arrest?

 

Are officers allowed to enter a home and arrest the person who lives there if they don't have a warrant for that person's arrest?

 

Those are legit questions that I was hoping to get the answers to. Silly me.

 

I thought it went without saying that this is one side of the story being provided.

 

KRS 70.078

 

70.078 Breaking and entering buildings to execute order of arrest.A sheriff having an order of arrest may enter any house or inclosure in which the party tobe arrested may be, to arrest him; and, if necessary for this purpose, may break the houseor inclosure, having informed any person therein of his object; or, if no person appear towhom such information can be given, after having publicly demanded the person to bearrested; and, in either case, after having given sufficient time for the house or inclosureto be opened.Effective: July 1, 1953History: Transferred 1952 Ky. Acts ch. 84, sec. 1, effective July 1, 1953, from C.C.sec. 676.

I think this answers your questions.

I've never really thought about it but it makes sense that they do not. I expect down the road they will have some type of iPad device where they can call it up if needed.

 

There is already e warrant in KY.

 

You look up them up in an online system.

KRS 70.078

 

70.078 Breaking and entering buildings to execute order of arrest.A sheriff having an order of arrest may enter any house or inclosure in which the party tobe arrested may be, to arrest him; and, if necessary for this purpose, may break the houseor inclosure, having informed any person therein of his object; or, if no person appear towhom such information can be given, after having publicly demanded the person to bearrested; and, in either case, after having given sufficient time for the house or inclosureto be opened.Effective: July 1, 1953History: Transferred 1952 Ky. Acts ch. 84, sec. 1, effective July 1, 1953, from C.C.sec. 676.

I think this answers your questions.

 

That would pertain to arresting the son, right? Not sure how that pertains to the Dad.

That would pertain to arresting the son, right? Not sure how that pertains to the Dad.

 

Yes.

 

Dad was seen as interfering with an arrest, which is a crime, would be my guess.

 

Only one side of the story has been told. I'll wait for all info to come out so I can make an informed opinion.

Forgive me if I'd like my officers of the law to be invested in the truth. Sorry that's a problem.

 

Do you have a problem with the police lying to criminals, ordinary citizens or both?

It's funny to me that UKMF is being raked across the coals here for asking questions and perceived assumptions. Ironically, several posters are assuming that the LEO's did nothing wrong here.

 

To me, he's mainly asking, if what is alleged in the suit is correct what kind of problems could the officers face. Seems pertinent. :isurrender: