Man Charged with Assault

B

bensdad

New member
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/432223_dog22.html?source=rss

I wonder if the police had probable cause to search the premises as he told him that he owned guns? Truck and home? Why were these taken from him as he did not have these on him and stated to the officers that he did not brandish the weapons at any time? What about trespassing by his neighbors and maybe they threatened him? Where these evidence?? Did the neighbors describe the guns in detail?

I wonder if a PO/or lawyer on this site could ex-plain the law that he broke?

If this happened the way the story tells the neighbors came to his home and he was in his house, and did not go out on his lawn and threatened them. There is no telling what type of people they are and he may have felled threatened by them coming to his house.
Did they have proof he put the poop by their home?
They must have known it was him, since their dog poops on his yard, but this is not evidence.
It is their word against his that he had a gun and threatened them. Maybe they had a weapon?

It is worrisome that if your neighbor knows you have guns and does not like you, that he could just allege that you did something with no proof and the police comes and takes your guns. Judge and jury, guilty as charged by your neighbor.

I am not blaming the police as they had reason to do what they did and meet these people, but I don't see the legality of taking his guns as they had no proof that these were ever used.

Please enlighten me.

My idea is that he should of reported every incident with the dog to the proper authorities, in Oklahoma there is a law against this type of behavior, and record it on video. If they came to his home take a video of it (phone or camera) and what happened, and told them to get off of his property or he would call the police. Close the door and call the police. They usually believe the first person to call to have been the victim as in this case.
 
Police react from a call into 911, they have no idea what has transpired prior to them arriving. So they will collect the evidence and will simply let the courts sort the issue out. Reporters dont know what has happened either, so their reporting of the incident may be suspect.

At this time, in this country, gun owners are in jeopardy, many sources want to take our guns from us.

The danger is, at some point there will be a secret agreement to confiscate our guns by any means. In my mind the police have in the past been able to stop vehicles for very unconstitutional reasons and they fully exercised that. It isn`t a big jump to realize one method that authorities have is "under the guise of a unidentified informant" calling the police to inform them that a house with a bad guy has guns and from this, you get you guns confiscated and the courts will not listen to your arguments. I have ceased from telling anyone in the neighborhood I have guns. Our government has taken the path of the "end justifies the means" and the end is "no guns for the population". Some may disagree with me but long term thats what I believe.
 
A dog crapped in the man's yard and he apparently went berserk. Smeared crap on the neighbor's door? Threatended them with a gun? The smearing ought to be verifiable. Maybe some witnesses to the gun thing, too. If there is any truth to it, then he sounds like the kind of guy that shouldn't have any guns. Sounds like the kind of guy that shows up at school board meetings and paints a big V on the wall.

Not everything is a conspiracy against gun owners.
 
So much of our gun rights are in the hands of the local prosecutor. If he (or she) hates guns and gun owners, he can make life hell for almost any of us.

As for this case, there's way more to the story, as always.
 
Wouldnt the police have had to witness the incident to charge him? If no one shows signs of abuse, and he didnt have the gun on him when they showed up, nor was it in sight, isnt it just a case of ones word against the other?
 
Okay, let's have a small dose of reality --

[1] The statement of a witness or claimed victim is evidence. Without some immediately obvious reason to disbelieve the statement of the neighbors here, their claim that the actor pointed a gun at them is probable cause to arrest him for assault.

[2] If the person arrested claims that he didn't do it or that the neighbors threatened him, he would raise that as a defense.

[3] If it goes to trial, it will still be the burden of the State to prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether the State can do so may well depend on whether the jury believes the neighbors, or whether the defense can discredit the neighbors' testimony enough to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.

AK103K said:
Wouldnt the police have had to witness the incident to charge him?...
Click to expand...
No.
 
Last time I had a law class was in FL. There, cops have to witness a misdemeanor to make a warrantless arrest, but can arrest based on witness statement for a felony. At least, that was true in the 80's.

Don't know about WA.
 
Wouldnt the police have had to witness the incident to charge him?...
Click to expand...

To expand the excellent explanation that the counselor gave, no. A misdemeanor must occur in the Officer's presence for the Officer to effect lawful arrest.

This does not, however, prevent the Officer from doing an on-site investigation, following reasonable steps:

1. The Officer responds to a complaint. He/she hears accounts of the story from victims and witnesses. These complaints and stories are consistent, and each one of them detail a criminal act. Based on these statements--which will also be generated in writing for the Officer--a "reasonable suspicion" develops that the person named did commit--or take a substantial step toward the commission of--an offense.

2. On the basis of this reasonable suspicion, the Officer makes contact with the person accused.

3. While the accused person relates their side of the story, the Officer hears things that tend to prove that the person did commit the offense. The Officer then informs the person that they are becoming the focus of an investigation into a criminal act, and the person (now a suspect) is admonished under the Miranda v. Arizona rights and warning statement.

4. The contact has now turned into an investigative detention (Terry v. Ohio, 386 US), and the Officer now uncovers facts which would believe that a crime has been/will be/is being committed. Thus, probable cause has been established. The suspect is now detained, and restraints are applied. A frisk for safety (weapons) is performed.

5. After the statements are gathered, the Officer notes that sufficient evidence has been gathered to charge the person with committing a criminal act. The suspect is now informed that they are under arrest. A search incident to arrest is conducted (much more detailed and intrusive than a "frisk". For misdemeanor offenses, the officer has the option to cite and release, or the Officer may place the suspect under custodial arrest, and transport them for booking and subsequent arraignment.

In this case, the articulated reports indicate that a felony offense has been committed. The gathering of evidence is the same--so is the establishment of probable cause. Because of the involvement of firearms, an order from the Court and a search warrant would be in order, and the suspect's firearms will be removed from the home for safekeeping.

If the suspect is convicted of the felony offense, he will forfeit his guns, and go through the process administered in this State of fine, imprisonment and restitution.
 
Exactly what are you referring to in this case as "hearsay"? Do you know what hearsay is?
Click to expand...


Am I incorrect in my usage of the word to implicate a "He-Said-She-Said" situation? (Not a lawyer, not using legal term. See this) To have one person complain of a crime that has no physical evidence of fact other than on the word of this person would grant the police powers for arrest when no other evidence of a crime has been committed?
 
Last edited:
WeedWacker said:
Am I incorrect in my usage of the word to implicate a "He-Said-She-Said" situation? (Not a lawyer, not using legal term. See this)...
Click to expand...
Yes, that's an incorrect usage, at least in legal terms. See the third bullet at the link you provided: "Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience...." (emphasis added)

In this case, the neighbors had direct experience of the event. They claimed a gun was pointed at them. They had direct experience of the event. But if A reports, "X said that Y pointed a gun at him [X]", A's statement, if offered for the purposes of establishing that Y pointed a gun at X, would be hearsay because A had no direct experience of the event. (But if A's report were used for the more limited purpose of showing that A had reason to believe that Y pointed a gun at X and to thus explain certain subsequent actions of A, the statement would either not be considered hearsay or would otherwise be admissible into evidence under one of the many exceptions to the hearsay rule.)

So a statement by a person about something that happened to him or that he actually saw would not be hearsay.

WeedWacker said:
...To have one person complain of a crime that has no physical evidence of fact other than on the word of this person would grant the police powers for arrest when no other evidence of a crime has been committed?
Click to expand...
It would be the starting point. See Powderman's excellent post 11.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top