St Paul police in "wrong-door no-knock"

[brimic]

Seriously, folks: you had police officers deny a child prescribed medication, resulting in medical complications, and y'all are gonna go on about some guy getting busted for a gun?

If the police had the right house, it wouldn't have happened.
If the police didn't decide to go fishing, it wouldn't have happened.
The fact that the kid could have died just shows that the 'police action' was a lot more important than the whole 'To serve and protect' thing.
Like I said in my first post
"Well at least no one was killed this time "

The police and the criminal justice system are more concerned with showing the citizenry that they have the power to do anything they want, unchallenged, than about the welfare of those around them.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

whats the word on his law firm?  any good?  or settlement trollers?  anyone from minn know?
 

[MechAg94]

there was an alleged "diabetic incident"  i am indeed shocked that the landshark hasn't shown the med report.  you think this guys gonna do better in civil court than he did in criminal?  why?

How do you know he didn't have a medical report?  Are you looking at the case?  I figure it was a mild "incident" and didn't require much medical care.  

Was the son a minor and unable to possess a pistol?  I was sort of surprised they couldn't make that argument, but if he is only in for a year, there may have been a plea bargain or it was a state law.  

On the length of time, it may have taken some time to find a lawyer willing to take the case or time to scrape up money.  I imagine a case like this, the lawyer can assume it will get caught up in appeals.  

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

not sure if the gilbert castillo is kin.  it gets complex   if he was dragging a tail he might have said the gun wasn't his to save his hide.  will be interesting to see how it plays out .

[Scout26]

Another round of C&SD's, "If you've been busted in the past then the police can violate your civil rights at will, so suck it up buttercup." rantings.

I'll simply say I agree with Revdisk and leave it at that.

 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

it does amuse that folks will take one side at face value without hearing the other.  most peculiar. i guess its the guys character that made him credible

[brimic]

it does amuse that folks will take one side at face value without hearing the other.  most peculiar. i guess its the guys character that made him credible

Tail wagging the dead dog?
Ever consider that the police broke into the wrong home, shot the dog, realized that they were in the wrong place, and thought "Uhoh, we've crossed a lot of lines here and had better find something to convict someone here." If it weren't the firearm found, it might have been 'bomb making materials' instead.

[Scout26]

NO.

The police violated his civil rights.  Full Stop. Period. End of Story.

I don't care if he had twice the number of dead hookers, guns and bushel baskets of coke, crack, and meth that birmic stated. None of the exceptions to the Fruit of the Poisioned Tree rule for evidence appear to apply in this case.

The cops broke the law. How can you not understand that? How do you not get one of the fundamental and basic founding principles of this country?

When they come and put their jack boots on your neck, don't expect anyone here to shed a tear for you.  Befristeten Vorbeugungshäftling

[SADShooter]

So I've been wrong all this time thinking that to "uphold" the law meant both enforcing and obeying the law. Silly rabbit, me.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i'm more curious  did this guy have his ccw and so was a certified good guy?   i'm unwilling to listen to one sides lawyer and get my thong in a knot. i do remember that this guy had a trial and 12 folks who heard more than what his lawyer is releasing convicted him. i'm gonna think a guy with his experience woulda raised the issues in his trial vis a vis the gun even if his lawyer didn't think of it. my cynical nature makes me wonder if his lawyer mighta forgot some details.  i mean he did overlook the prior conviction that made the gun illegal.

[Scout26]

i'm more curious  did this guy have his ccw and so was a certified good guy?  i'm unwilling to listen to one sides lawyer and get my thong in a knot. i do remember that this guy had a trial and 12 folks who heard more than what his lawyer is releasing convicted him. i'm gonna think a guy with his experience woulda raised the issues in his trial vis a vis the gun even if his lawyer didn't think of it. my cynical nature makes me wonder if his lawyer mighta forgot some details.  i mean he did overlook the prior conviction that made the gun illegal.

Yes, you are absolutely right.   Guilty until proven innocent.  I mean the prosecution never withholds evidence or hides criminal wrongdoing by the police during a trial.  

Better that 100 innocent men go to jail, than 1 guilty man go free.

[roo_ster]

it does amuse that folks will take one side at face value without hearing the other.  most peculiar. i guess its the guys character that made him credible

They got the wrong house.  The cops admit it.  Everything after that is bushwa.  Every further act by the cops short of un-assing the AO and mouthing lavish apologies is a further outrage.

Tail wagging the dead dog?
Ever consider that the police broke into the wrong home, shot the dog, realized that they were in the wrong place, and thought "Uhoh, we've crossed a lot of lines here and had better find something to convict someone here." If it weren't the firearm found, it might have been 'bomb making materials' instead.

Ayup.  Last time I heard it, it was:
Cop A pulls dude over and beats the ever-loving *expletive deleted*it out of him for a little pick-me-up.  Cops B and C feel real uncomfortable about Cop A's behavior (waht with the blood and nothing indicating dude broke the law), but their spirits brighten after they peel Cop A off dude, search dude, and find a joint in his back pocket, thus providing heretofore non-existent evidence for arrest.  Who knew sadists also have x-ray vision?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Ayup.  Last time I heard it, it was:
Cop A pulls dude over and beats the ever-loving *expletive deleted* out of him for a little pick-me-up.  Cops B and C feel real uncomfortable about Cop A's behavior (waht with the blood and nothing indicating dude broke the law), but their spirits brighten after they peel Cop A off dude, search dude, and find a joint in his back pocket, thus providing heretofore non-existent evidence for arrest.  Who knew sadists also have x-ray vision?


i missed that case


The cops admit it.

missed that too

can you help with those?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Yes, you are absolutely right.   Guilty until proven innocent.  I mean the prosecution never withholds evidence or hides criminal wrongdoing by the police during a trial.  

Better that 100 innocent men go to jail, than 1 guilty man go free.

you missed his trial and conviction?

edited to add 

at least 2 of each?

[roo_ster]

Ayup.  Last time I heard it, it was:
Cop A pulls dude over and beats the ever-loving *expletive deleted* out of him for a little pick-me-up.  Cops B and C feel real uncomfortable about Cop A's behavior (waht with the blood and nothing indicating dude broke the law), but their spirits brighten after they peel Cop A off dude, search dude, and find a joint in his back pocket, thus providing heretofore non-existent evidence for arrest.  Who knew sadists also have x-ray vision?


i missed that case

Happened in my neck of the woods.  Not exactly national news when someone with a joint ends up viciously assaulting an officer's fists with his face.

The cops admit it.

missed that too

can you help with those?

Can't claim to have gotten evidence in good faith on a bad warrant with wrong person/address on it without first having a bad warrant.

[Fitz]

This forum BADLY needs an iggy function.


Remember, kiddies, if you've EVER made a mistake in your life, you deserve to have your rights trampled upon.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

so thats a definite no to cops admitting it?  i see his lawyer claiming it  i can't see cops admission anywhere.

where did the 3 cops find the joint post beating?

[Fitz]

so thats a definite no to cops admitting it?  i see his lawyer claiming it  i can't see cops admission anywhere.

where did the 3 cops find the joint post beating?

Does it MATTER where they found the joint?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

This forum BADLY needs an iggy function.


Remember, kiddies, if you've EVER made a mistake in your life, you deserve to have your rights trampled upon.

it has one its operated between keyboard and seat

[Fitz]

it has one its operated between keyboard and seat

1.) Your sig is particularly hilarious given many of your posts.

2.) one cannot stop ones eyes from alighting on your drivel.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

your's is broken then?

[roo_ster]

http://www.wesh.com/news/central-florida/Deputies-shoot-kill-man-after-knocking-on-wrong-door/-/11788162/15527202/-/euk6tg/-/index.html

Hey, at least Tackleberry got to kill one down in sunny Florida:

In the early-morning hours, deputies knocked on 26-year-old Andrew Lee Scott's door without identifying themselves as law enforcement officers. Scott answered the door with a gun in his hand.

"When we knocked on the door, the door opened and the occupant of that apartment was pointing a gun at deputies, and that's when we opened fire and killed him," Lt. John Herrell said. "Even though this subject is not the one we were looking for when he opened the door. He was pointing the gun at the deputy and if you put yourselves in the deputy's shoes. They were there to pick up someone who was wanted for an attempted homicide."

Officials said the deputies did not identify themselves because of safety reasons.

Deputies thought they were confronting Jonathan Brown, a man accused of attempted murder. Brown was spotted at the Blueberry Hills Apartment complex and his motorcycle was parked across from Andrew Scott's front door.

so thats a definite no to cops admitting it?  i see his lawyer claiming it  i can't see cops admission anywhere.

where did the 3 cops find the joint post beating?

Ayup.  Last time I heard it, it was:
Cop A pulls dude over and beats the ever-loving *expletive deleted* out of him for a little pick-me-up.  Cops B and C feel real uncomfortable about Cop A's behavior (waht with the blood and nothing indicating dude broke the law), but their spirits brighten after they peel Cop A off dude, search dude, and find a joint in his back pocket, thus providing heretofore non-existent evidence for arrest.  Who knew sadists also have x-ray vision?

[Fitz]

Hey, remember kids. Anything in the name of "officer safety"

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

it may indeed prove that the cops screwed up.  but it has not by any reasonable measure been proven so far.  the fact that so many are deluded speaks volumes. if i were a cop i'd be more worried that so many believe so easily.  thats a bigger problem than what happened or didn't happen in minnesota.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://www.wesh.com/news/central-florida/Deputies-shoot-kill-man-after-knocking-on-wrong-door/-/11788162/15527202/-/euk6tg/-/index.html

Hey, at least Tackleberry got to kill one down in sunny Florida:

was that an attempt to show that the cops either admitted it was a bad warrant?  or a diversion from the other "case" you mentioned?