Cop shot dog, owner blamed police

[Msmith]

There are wrong in so many levels in this story.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I'm talking criminal procedure, not civil law.

This is basic Constitutional restraints on law enforcement. This kind of stuff could be brought up in a civil suit, but more frequently is used for the basis of exclusionary motions in criminal matters. It has nothing, not one thing, to do with state law. It's a 4th amendment matter and it applies in all jurisdictions; MO, TX and Louisiana.

Once the officer entered an area whereupon the homeowner had a reasonable expectation of privacy, he was engaging in 4th Amendment activity. As such, he either needed a warrant or an actual emergency. A shots fired call could have constituted an emegency, but not once the officer arrived to a quiet neighborhood and allegedly saw a potato gun; at that point he knew that no emergency existed. .

He did not know there was no emergency from just seeing a potato gun. There could have been a dead body laying 3 feet behind the potato gun at the entrance to the door of the house that couldn't be seen from his vantage point at the fence.

All drug dealers and thugs should leave potato guns lying around their property. This way they can shoot someone in their backyard without prosecution. Police would pull up to the scene and see a potato gun on the front lawn and not be able to do anything else or make any other investigation.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

He did not know there was no emergency from just seeing a potato gun. There could have been a dead body laying 3 feet behind the potato gun at the entrance to the door of the house that couldn't be seen from his vantage point at the fence.

All drug dealers and thugs should leave potato guns lying around their property. This way they can shoot someone in their backyard without prosecution. Police would pull up to the scene and see a potato gun on the front lawn and not be able to do anything else or make any other investigation.

I ask again - did he act like this was an emergency? Did he act like a guy that really thought there was a dead body in the backyard or drug dealers hanging in the weeds?

No, he absolutely didn't. He walked into an enclosed area that was disguised from the road with no backup and no means of escape. If this is how he treats situations where there is an immediate threat to his life, then he will not be long for this earth.

You keep saying "could have" this and "could have" that. We're going back to hidden ninja assassins and disguised dead bodies.

The bottom line is that this guy will make exactly the argument you're suggesting in front of a court and the court will let him off (court's grant deference to officer statements).

At the same time, his conduct absolutely suggests that he was not operating under the impression that anyone was at risk. Get him on the stand and put him under oath under penalty of purjery and you could probably eventually cross-examine him into a corner and get him to admit it.

I'm well aware of the possibility of hidden ninjas and zombie corpses, but this officer had already considered and dismissed the possibility.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

No, he absolutely didn't. He walked into an enclosed area that was disguised from the road with no backup.

.

That indicates he was responding to an emergency. If it wasn't an emergency he could have waited around, knocked on the front door with a nice pecan pie as a gesture of good-will.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

That indicates he was responding to an emergency. If it wasn't an emergency he could have waited around, knocked on the front door with a nice pecan pie as a gesture of good-will.

I'd venture a guess that we'd have a hell of a lot fewer cops wandering around if it was their standard policy to walk into dark alleys without a way to retreat and no backup around if they considered it an emergency. Officers are not trained to recklessly put themselves in harms way like that. Kamikazee cops do nobody any good.

That's not how they operate. And this cop himself said he went into the yard because he saw the potato gun. Not because he thought there was gunfire or an emergency situation.

Much like Whatamuss, you're bending over backwards to ignore the basic facts of the situation here. Yes, this could've been drawn up to fit what you're describing. No, that's not what happened.

[HoneyBadger]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I ask again - did he act like this was an emergency? Did he act like a guy that really thought there was a dead body in the backyard or drug dealers hanging in the weeds?

No, he absolutely didn't. He walked into an enclosed area that was disguised from the road with no backup and no means of escape. If this is how he treats situations where there is an immediate threat to his life, then he will not be long for this earth.

You keep saying "could have" this and "could have" that. We're going back to hidden ninja assassins and disguised dead bodies.

The bottom line is that this guy will make exactly the argument you're suggesting in front of a court and the court will let him off (court's grant deference to officer statements).

At the same time, his conduct absolutely suggests that he was not operating under the impression that anyone was at risk. Get him on the stand and put him under oath under penalty of purjery and you could probably eventually cross-examine him into a corner and get him to admit it.

I'm well aware of the possibility of hidden ninjas and zombie corpses, but this officer had already considered and dismissed the possibility.

Are you 100% certain that he had no back-up? How do you know he wasn't checking the rear yard while another officer was in the front yard?
Posted via Mobile Device

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by fire_lm

Are you 100% certain that he had no back-up? How do you know he wasn't checking the rear yard while another officer was in the front yard?
Posted via Mobile Device

Nope, nor am I certain that the ninja assassins didn't escape unnoticed upon his entry.

Like I said, I'm not a juror here. Based on the incident report which made no mention of backup, and the newspaper report, which again made no mention of same, I am comfortable stating that he went it alone.

Even if another officer was present, if he truly felt this was an emergency situation, that officer would've gone in behind him. He damn sure wouldn't have been hanging out around front while the other guy went in behind the fence without support. The incident report would've made mention of that (as I can't imagine the other office would've just stood there holding his dick).

You're asking me for a sworn statement and photographic evidence of this guy pissing on the Constitution. In the meantime, I'm asking you to subject this to a pretty basic sniff test.

It seems few of you want to do so.

[crazycoffey]

Originally Posted by fire_lm

Are you 100% certain that he had no back-up? How do you know he wasn't checking the rear yard while another officer was in the front yard?
Posted via Mobile Device

I asked him that earlier, it doesn't help his opinion that the officer is did wrong.

As I stated earlier, the potato gun does not rule out the gunfire call, yet also doesn't mean it "life and death" to wait for back up.

[crazycoffey]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Nope, nor am I certain that the ninja assassins didn't escape unnoticed upon his entry.

Like I said, I'm not a juror here. Based on the incident report which made no mention of backup, and the newspaper report, which again made no mention of same, I am comfortable stating that he went it alone.

Even if another officer was present, if he truly felt this was an emergency situation, that officer would've gone in behind him. He damn sure wouldn't have been hanging out around front while the other guy went in behind the fence without support. The incident report would've made mention of that (as I can't imagine the other office would've just stood there holding his dick).

You're asking me for a sworn statement and photographic evidence of this guy pissing on the Constitution. In the meantime, I'm asking you to subject this to a pretty basic sniff test.

It seems few of you want to do so.

both sides need to stop taking this to extreme "CSI miami" levels. no ninjas or dead bodies need to be present, but a quick look for casings is entirely within the officer's authority. Did you see the picture? The fence is not one that can be easily "looked over" anyway.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by CrazyCoffey

both sides need to stop taking this to extreme "CSI miami" levels. no ninjas or dead bodies need to be present, but a quick look for casings is entirely within the officer's authority. Did you see the picture? The fence is not one that can be easily "looked over" anyway.

No. It. Isn't.

The officer has no authority to go inside that fence. You can't just go wandering inside of a domicile without consent or a warrant, even if its in the course of an investigation. His backyard was contained by a privacy fence (you alluded to it, it's not easily looked over or through). He tooks steps to maintain his privacy, his yard was not held out to the public. He had a reasonable expecation of privacy and therefore his 4th amendment rights extend to that yard. It was part of the curtilage of his home and therefore by going into it, the officer essentially walked in the front door of the house. You and I both know that an officer can't just do that even in the course of an investigation absent exigent circumstances. It's basic 4th amendment stuff.

To go into that yard, the officer needed an exception to the warrant requirements; in this case that would likely have to be an emergency.

You seem to think his conduct supports a determination that this was an emergency. I believe his conduct makes it very clear he did not believe it was an emergency and therefore did not have that exigency.

I believe he'll say he did. I believe a court will extend him that deference. I also believe that he's full of crap.

[Stevie.Wonder]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Story: when dumbass person and dumbass cop collide.

Story won't load, so I'm guessing, fwiw. At the min, I read through the thread and have lived in NOLA.

First, for folks who haven't lived in NOLA, it's sort of understood that you simply don't protest against the PO (i.e.: recognize while you MAY have constitutional rights, you don't have practical rights to plead your case on sight.)

It seems to me there isn't a rational reason on earth, other than the spectre of 'pit pull' that the dog should be killed. Even a potato gun is a constitutionally protectied weapon, the right of property was intruded upon, and liberty and private property were negatively affected, to say the least. I don't personally agree with anything I just wrote, but it's pretty much the case. Details could be debated.

[-King-]

Is everybody missing this?

Reimer said he raced outside after hearing the first shot. He saw the deputy and Sandy standing about three feet apart.

"I said, 'No, don't shoot. Don't shoot. Don't shoot. She won't hurt you,'" Reimer recalled.

He said the deputy looked at him, looked back at the dog and opened fire.

So he was warned...and he still shot the dog the 2nd time?

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Stevie.Wonder

Story won't load, so I'm guessing, fwiw. At the min, I read through the thread and have lived in NOLA.

First, for folks who haven't lived in NOLA, it's sort of understood that you simply don't protest against the PO (i.e.: recognize while you MAY have constitutional rights, you don't have practical rights to plead your case on sight.)

That's another point that people keep sidestepping here.

The police force down there doesn't so much concern itself with following law and procedure. It's an exceedingly corrupt environment and it's pretty well accepted.

It's why this needs to be reviewed on a strictly factual basis. You have to look at exactly how each party has behaved both before and after the incident (and non-parties, for that matter; NOLA is entirely too rough to be sending one officer into a suposedly dangerous situation; it just wouldn't happen). Then you have to look at the known tendencies of law enforcement in the area.

Too many factors point towards "careless cop covering his own ass" for me to believe otherwise.

As I've said repeatedly, it's extremely unlikely anything comes of this because of how the courts operate down there, but I'm not on a jury right now.

[wutamess]

Originally Posted by KcChiefsKing

Is everybody missing this?


So he was warned...and he still shot the dog the 2nd time?

That's a dumb way to look at it... if the officer wanted to kill the dog why not do it instead of firing a warning shot. Stop trying to add fuel to the fire and twist shit around.

[Stevie.Wonder]

Originally Posted by KcChiefsKing

Is everybody missing this?


So he was warned...and he still shot the dog the 2nd time?

The best that we can hope for is that every profession has 'those guys'. It's excrutiating to know that a profession like the police still includes 'those guys', but it is what it is.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by KcChiefsKing

Is everybody missing this?


So he was warned...and he still shot the dog the 2nd time?

Didn't miss it, just don't care.

If I were an officer justifiably in the area and a large aggressive dog was attacking me, Jesus himself could come down and tell me that the dog wouldn't attack and I'd still shoot the MFer. Everybody says their dog won't hurt you...and a fair amount of them are wrong.

My concern isn't with the shooting of the dog, it's with the conduct that created the problem where there wasn't one initially.