Boulder woman disturbed to discover police regularly enter unsecured homes

[Broncojohnny]

If you shoot him in your home it's your word against his...well, it's your word that he came into your home unannounced and you felt threatened so you shot him (assuming you killed him). And it would be well deserved. Come into my home without an invite, you are taking a risk.

For you LEOs, it's only gonna get worse from here. You are government agents and our government is raping us at will...your thankless job is getting more thankless.

It is your word against theirs and they have no problem lying about it just like anyone else would.

[davbrucas]

Not if the fucker is dead!

[GrayStangGT]

Not if the fucker is dead!

If you're going to shoot someone always make sure there is only one side to the story.

[mikec]

Reported post for not falling in line with your brethren.


Good post, and kudos for your honestly and lack of "fuck you, I'm a cop" mentality a la hustleman, the JBT.

Jason is pretty good people Brent. Ugly as hell, but a pretty good guy!

[davbrucas]

There are many cops out there that are "good guys" but when the shit hits the fan and the government has pushed too far, whose side do you think those "good guys" will be on?

[mikec]

There are many cops out there that are "good guys" but when the shit hits the fan and the government has pushed too far, whose side do you think those "good guys" will be on?

Agreed Dave. Though I've only talked with him a couple times, I wouldn't doubt that Jason would throw in on our side. Seemed to be a 'real' guy.

Though until that day comes, who really knows...

[davbrucas]

I hope we never have to find out. I keep hoping that this Constitutional downward spiral will stop and be reversed but I dont see it happening. I see us going the way of Canada and the UK...which pisses me the Hell off.

[03trubluGT]

I lock my shit.

That said, even if I left it open, I don't like the idea of a cop coming in uninvited. If someone from my house calls in distress, or if a neighbor calls because they actually saw something suspicious (beyond just an open door), that's different. But just an open door alone shouldn't give them the right to enter. If the law says otherwise, that sucks.

Probably 95 percent of the time this occurs there has been a burglar alarm and or a door was left unsecured and wide open for someone to see. Depends on the prior call in this story whether I think it would be a good entry or not. I do not make it a habit to walk around folks house and jiggle the knobs unless I am dispatched to that residence for a reason. Lets all face it we do not want random fuckers walking around in our house. I have known lots of Officers and can say over the years there may have been one or two I wouldn't want in my house. If I am dispatched to your house for a random BMV follow up or some other kind of bullshit I have no intentions of even touching your door handles or sliding glass window. I don't want to be in your house anymore then you want me there.

I can't count the number of open door calls we get. In this day and time, nobody wants to go check someone else's door, so they call the police to do it.

I'm with Jason. I don't want to go in anywhere I'm not needed, or don't have to.

[hustleman]

LOL, that is pretty close.....youre warm.

I dont know how many times ive come on here and said police do not know the laws. Just more proof.

I love how in this JBT's eyes that an open door = imminent robbery in progress.

Apparently fresh air = imminent robbery

the real reason cops walk in open doors is because they are JBT's that have no respect for the fourth amendment, and they believe that it is 'open to the public' . They just want to go in, look around and see who they can arrest. It's your standard book of nefarious shit youre allowed to do when you 'are the law' .
But this JBT doesn't know what fucking case laws actually allow this two bit shit to walk all over your rights. You don't need a big ass brain to figure this out. You just need to throw a lot of parties at apartments!

Oh don't forget to go fuck yourself JBT!

Brigham City v Stuart...

You mad bro!!!

The only thing I'm saying is there are many articulable facts that can be made to make it exigent... Neighbor calling in saying someone entered the locate, multiple burglaries in the area, noises heard, ect... Understand the exigent is a perception not written in stone. So someone can present facts to why they felt is was exigent and argue a case.

With that being said, this JBT stuff is ridiculous. I don't go around tugging on unlocked door knobs to make entry into peoples homes. The only time I enter is if it and open door or window and there are signs of a possible offense. Example ransacked house, damage to door or window. Secondly when I enter the house I am strictly looking for persons, nothing else. I clear the house/apt where people can hide then get out and attempt to make contact with resident. I don't open drawers or cabinets that people can't hide in.

I don't walk around crushing the civil liberties of known criminals so why would I enter a possible victims house to try to drop a case on them. I don't period. Hell I don't even write good folks tickets unless they are absolute assholes.

So don't take my post as me saying police have the absolute right to enter anyones house and dig around to find a bogus case. I am merely advising people as to why/what makes it lawful. I don't participate in that and don't believe any LEOs should do this as a way to violate your civil liberties.

[Sean88gt]

I hope we never have to find out. I keep hoping that this Constitutional downward spiral will stop and be reversed but I dont see it happening. I see us going the way of Canada and the UK...which pisses me the Hell off.

It takes a long time for a train to get up to speed, it takes longer to slow it down.

[Broncojohnny]

Brigham City v Stuart...

Which was a case where police actually saw an altercation taking place in a house and took action. Thus a crime was "imminent".

So try again.

[03trubluGT]

Which was a case where police actually saw an altercation taking place in a house and took action. Thus a crime was "imminent".

So try again.

I really don't want to get in a pissing match, but the officer could always cite the care taking function.

[hustleman]

[QUOTE=Broncojohnny;1089407]Which was a case where police actually saw an altercation taking place in a house and took action. Thus a crime was "imminent".

So try again.[/


You clearly don't get it. I'm done with this. You are not understanding the key variable of articulation of facts and the scope of exigent/crime in progress. That case is the precedent and opens avenue for lawful entry.

[Forever_frost]

I'm pretty sure there's precedent for a lot of violations of rights that the courts upheld. Let's go with actual authority to act.

[hustleman]

I'm pretty sure there's precedent for a lot of violations of rights that the courts upheld. Let's go with actual authority to act.

Well if the court upholds it then isn't that the authority to act? What other recourse beside revolution is there?