More information requested on a recent CA arrest video that's gone viral

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Silver00LT

New member
Video Clip
News Clipping

What happened prior to the camera being turned on? From the actions shown in the video I am at a loss for words. I received this video in a text from a buddy of mine. Since this forum has a high standard of morals on posts I know I can at least get useful information here without having to sort through stuff like on YouTube.

Police officers state "domestic violence" yet they state it was just an argument. So hoping someone local to that area has paper clippings or a better understanding of the laws there. We all know how viral YouTube videos can be mislead and wrong information sent.

Just trying to get a grasp of the WHOLE picture. Because I know them just hearing her is not enough. They need to see that she has not been beaten or being held against her will out of fear.

A lot of missing information....the couple could have a list of priors. How long were they waiting prior to the camera being turned on. This is why I wish police officers had cameras on them as well.
 
Wow. I guess that PD is going to make someone's payday. Especially since the woman was tazed first (assuming an allegation of DV by the husband). And kicking their door down to conduct a warrentless search. Just.....wow.
 
The OP is asking for information about what took place, and showing some healthy skepticism about what's behind the events shown in the video. Let's not jump to conclusions, and let's not use this as an excuse to vent about police states, or otherwise indulge in cop-bashing.

I did a quick Google search and found no reports on this from legit news sources, so I too am skeptical at this point, and hoping for some actual facts.
 
Based on the little information available it does highlight an interesting point of intersection between law enforcement and peoples rights. AFAIK, a DV(but does disturbance=violence?) call does meet the standard of exigent circumstances to enter a private property. However, in theory, should a third party's(person who calls it in outside of the home) perception of commotion really over ride the occupants rights? Should LE be required to note some sort of corroborating evidence before exigence is established?
 
In watching the videos, it appears to me that once the officers made visual and verbal contact with the adults in the home, all claims to exigent circumstances justifying warrantless entry fall by the wayside. I see no immediate risk to the lives of anyone inside the home, and they certainly had time to obtain a warrant.

I think what we're seeing is the officers in this case believed that a DV call necessitates entry into the house regardless of any other circumstances they might encounter at the scene.

And yeah - tasering the woman appears to have been done without any sort of justification whatsoever. You can't taser people just to shut them up.
 
As the OP said, we have no idea what happened before the beginning of the video. Plenty of folks have led the police on chases, then run into a crowd screaming "police brutality" and "I did nothing!" while the police cuff them. All the crowd sees is what's in front of them, which is a "victim" being "abused" by the police.

The same goes here. Let's refrain from general commentary on the situation until we have more information.
 
Based on the little information available it does highlight an interesting point of intersection between law enforcement and peoples rights. AFAIK, a DV(but does disturbance=violence?) call does meet the standard of exigent circumstances to enter a private property. However, in theory, should a third party's(person who calls it in outside of the home) perception of commotion really over ride the occupants rights? Should LE be required to note some sort of corroborating evidence before exigence is established?
Click to expand...
I think that "exigent circumstance" needs/must be re-evaluated on a continuing basis. If they had responded to a DV call and no one responded, then I think you can make a compelling case that exigent circumstances existed that justified making entry without permission or warrant. But once they made contact with the couple inside, I can see no justification for claiming that there was an imminent risk of harm to anyone inside. Best I can tell, they went in because they wanted to go in and wanted to assert situational control and induce compliance. In situations like this, law enforcement and the protection of citizens' rights tend to take a back seat to taking charge of the scene and making those on the scene do what you want them to do.
 
I don't understand why these people were under any obligation to allow police to enter their home or be compelled to leave it. From what I see a million dollars and at least a couple of firings. Disgraceful.

BTW here is the San Fransisco Huffington Post link on the same event
Click to expand...

Think Cleveland. Just because two people say they were fighting doesn't mean they aren't lying, and that others are the ones being abused, but are behind the door.

Taking all this with an extreme grain of salt.

In the real world, why not come out and talk to the officer?
 
Think Cleveland. Just because two people say they were fighting doesn't mean they aren't lying, and that others are the ones being abused, but are behind the door.
Click to expand...
We can each imagine any number of scary scenarios. But cops are required to base their judgements on their observations and the law, not their imaginations.

In the real world, why not come out and talk to the officer?
Click to expand...
Yeah, fine. But the point is they're not required to. I don't know about you, but I have a real problem with this assumption that we as citizens are supposed to yield our rights arbitrarily just because it will make police officers happier. They are our servants, not the other way around.
 
Quote:
Think Cleveland. Just because two people say they were fighting doesn't mean they aren't lying, and that others are the ones being abused, but are behind the door.

We can each imagine any number of scary scenarios. But cops are required to base their judgements on their observations and the law, not their imaginations.
Click to expand...

Not getting your point. Thats not a scary scenario. Thats happened. Its also why its standard policy in many jurisidctions to look at all parties.

Quote:
In the real world, why not come out and talk to the officer?

Yeah, fine. But the point is they're not required to. I don't know about you, but I have a real problem with this assumption that we as citizens are supposed to yield our rights arbitrarily just because it will make police officers happier. They are our servants, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

You're under the presumption that something is going on. You have the right to remain silent. You don't have the right to not be questioned or be lawfully detained incident to an investigation.
 
Not getting your point. Thats not a scary scenario. Thats happened. Its also why its standard policy in many jurisidctions to look at all parties.
Click to expand...
It's still an imaginary scenario that does not present justification to violate an individual(s) fourth amendment protections. Neither does "standard policy" - there are all manner of PD standard policies that are very likely extra-constitutional.

You're under the presumption that something is going on.
Click to expand...
Who holds this presumption and what is its basis? Is a simple dispatcher's call (which can very easily be grossly wrong/mistaken) enough to strip the rights of any citizens you may encounter? I'd argue no.

You have the right to remain silent. You don't have the right to not be questioned
Click to expand...
Actually, I DO have the right not to be questioned without an attorney present.

or be lawfully detained incident to an investigation.
Click to expand...
And I would STRONGLY argue against the legality of the entry made to compel the detention as well as the legality of the detention itself. What is the probable cause here?
 
So little actual information and so much wild speculation and guess work.

Yes, cops can have duties to act in exigent circumstances, and while the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, there's a lot of case law about what and when something is reasonable.

And yes, in many cases a citizen can tell a cop to "take a hike."

Which applies here? We have no idea, and there's insufficient information upon which to base a sound conclusion.

I'll close this for now, and staff will consider whether to re-open it.
 
Last edited:
I would only consider reopening, when and/or if we have more information... More being enough to form some kind of opinion.

Right now, there is very little (info) to base any opinion on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top