Is the third amendment under attack??

[i'va biggen]

Let's have a show of hands.. How many of you bad ass gun owners would have grabbed your home defender and met the police with force when they kicked in the door?

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

OK, let's spell out what that means.
e.

You seem to think - for no apparent reason - that answering or not answering the door is the key to this whole issue.

But, the cops were coming into this guys house no matter what. They need their "tactical advantage" over the neighbor, whatever the fuck that means.

So, if he (or you) answers the door and the cops say "We need to come in and occupy your place for a while", and he (or you) refuses to let them in, WHAT THEN?

You say "if they insist, they have problems". What does that mean? Are you telling us you were going to shoot it out with armed cops?

And most importantly of all, how would opening or not opening the door make ANY FUCKING DIFFERENCE?

You keep saying if he had answered the door, there would have been no problem. I say bullshit, there was going to be a problem NO MATTER WHAT if he (or you) had refused to let them in.

And the article clearly states that the cops called Mitchell BY PHONE and told him they needed to occupy his place. The article also says that he told the police that he did not want to become involved and did NOT want them to enter and occupy his home.

So, at that point, the cops know they do not have his permission to enter. So they bring a BATTERING RAM to the door and smash it in.

So, explain to me again how answering the door would have changed anything. If he opened the door even a crack and said "you cannot come in", then they would have just kicked it open into his face. They already had the battering ram for that purpose


where to begin ??







You seem to think - for no apparent reason - that answering or not answering the door is the key to this whole issue.

how can a cop break down a door that's open?

But, the cops were coming into this guys house no matter what. They need their "tactical advantage" over the neighbor, whatever the fuck that means.

the cops mo is irrelevant if the homeowner answers the door ..

So, if he (or you) answers the door and the cops say "We need to come in and occupy your place for a while", and he (or you) refuses to let them in, WHAT THEN?

I shut the door ...

You say "if they insist, they have problems". What does that mean? Are you telling us you were going to shoot it out with armed cops?

nah I don't shoot cops ...

And most importantly of all, how would opening or not opening the door make ANY FUCKING DIFFERENCE?

I have a much stronger case in a court of law if cops crash my pad after I insisted they didn't

You keep saying if he had answered the door, there would have been no problem. I say bullshit, there was going to be a problem NO MATTER WHAT if he (or you) had refused to let them in.

I keep saying cops cant break down doors that are open, if they do against my will, I'm off the legal hook ..

And the article clearly states that the cops called Mitchell BY PHONE and told him they needed to occupy his place. The article also says that he told the police that he did not want to become involved and did NOT want them to enter and occupy his home.

sigh~ Look boys I said no and I mean it .. bye ! once again the burden of gilt shifts to LE.

So, at that point, the cops know they do not have his permission to enter. So they bring a BATTERING RAM to the door and smash it in.

So, explain to me again how answering the door would have changed anything. If he opened the door even a crack and said "you cannot come in", then they would have just kicked it open into his face. They already had the battering ram for that purpose

see all of the above ... its called opening the door and covering your ass in a court of law should you decide to sue, and the homeowner IS suing

[Cpalmson]

Fuck the cops. They were in the wrong. Too many people are sheep in America. They think that cops are there to "serve and protect". For many, that is true, but for some, the gun and a badge leads to bullying. KNOW YOUR RIGHTS. Without a warrant, the cops have no business seeking a "tactical advantage" in a private citizen's residence. Fuck the so-called "exigent circumstances". That is a bull shit excuse for when the cops are clueless.

Should the guy have opened the door, probably. Did he have to? Absolutely not.

[CJ7]

Should the guy have opened the door, probably. Did he have to? Absolutely not

Thank you.

[NiceGuy53]

Originally Posted by CJ7

Should the guy have opened the door, probably. Did he have to? Absolutely not

Thank you.

Hey, you forgot "The End"!

LMAO!

Too bad, you still don't get it!

[NiceGuy53]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Let's have a show of hands.. How many of you bad ass gun owners would have grabbed your home defender and met the police with force when they kicked in the door?

You are an idiot! Right up there with your butt buddy, CBJ7.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by CJ7

Should the guy have opened the door, probably. Did he have to? Absolutely not

Thank you.

Your response to my post above was all corrupted, so I will respond to this one.

You say the burden "shifts" to the cops when you open the door and tell them they can't come in. How so? Can you cite any legal authority for that?

Mitchell has already told them - point blank - that they could not come in. So, the burden was already shifted, to the extent it needs to be shifted at all.

And you are now contradicting yourself. Your early posts said that if he answered the door, there would have been "no problem". As if the cops would have gone away.

But NOW you are acknowledging that answering the door would just give you better legal grounds for suing the cops after they come in. So, in other words, there would still be a problem even if you do answer the door, but you think there is a better lawsuit to be had.

That doesn't sound to me like answering the door would have made the problem go away.

And what legal hook are you off?

If you refuse to let them in after opening the door and they force their way in, you are STILL obstructing the police in performing their duties to the same extent Mitchell was. He has already told them they could not come in.

And all charges were dismissed against Mitchell with prejudice, so apparently he IS off the legal hook - and without answering the door.

[CJ7]

just sayin what I would have done and why

sue me

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

You are an idiot! Right up there with your butt buddy, CBJ7.

Is that a yes dickweed?

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Is that a yes dickweed?

welcome to the IBJr Club..

[nwarounder]

"However, Henderson Municipal Court records show that on Nov. 1, 2011, both charges against White were dismissed with prejudice and that the case was closed."

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/cr...ng-their-homes

So, this was such an extreme case that they had to invade a neighbors house and shoot the dog with a pepper spray gun and yet now they drop the charges? I truly feel sorry for anybody that either does not know their rights or live in such fear of the police that they think they have to, or will voluntarily have their rights violated. Thank god they are suing these thugs that clearly do not know what their job is or how to do it, hope they get millions in the lawsuit!

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

"However, Henderson Municipal Court records show that on Nov. 1, 2011, both charges against White were dismissed with prejudice and that the case was closed."

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/cr...ng-their-homes

So, this was such an extreme case that they had to invade a neighbors house and shoot the dog with a pepper spray gun and yet now they drop the charges? I truly feel sorry for anybody that either does not know their rights or live in such fear of the police that they think they have to, or will voluntarily have their rights violated. Thank god they are suing these thugs that clearly do not know what their job is or how to do it, hope they get millions in the lawsuit!

you do realize this is the plaintiff's story ... allegedly.

[NiceGuy53]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Your response to my post above was all corrupted, so I will respond to this one.

You say the burden "shifts" to the cops when you open the door and tell them they can't come in. How so? Can you cite any legal authority for that?

Mitchell has already told them - point blank - that they could not come in. So, the burden was already shifted, to the extent it needs to be shifted at all.

And you are now contradicting yourself. Your early posts said that if he answered the door, there would have been "no problem". As if the cops would have gone away.

But NOW you are acknowledging that answering the door would just give you better legal grounds for suing the cops after they come in. So, in other words, there would still be a problem even if you do answer the door, but you think there is a better lawsuit to be had.

That doesn't sound to me like answering the door would have made the problem go away.

And what legal hook are you off?

If you refuse to let them in after opening the door and they force their way in, you are STILL obstructing the police in performing their duties to the same extent Mitchell was. He has already told them they could not come in.

And all charges were dismissed against Mitchell with prejudice, so apparently he IS off the legal hook - and without answering the door.

Hey, he's just being CBJ7. He shits and then slips in his own shit and no matter how hard he trys, he just ends up with even more shit on him than he had after his first post. Poor guy! LOL.

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by CJ7

you do realize this is the plaintiff's story ... allegedly.

Yes, however the White case was not alleged, and it appears factual the charges were dropped against him.
It is also apparent that the plaintiff (Mitchell) swore in an affidavit to the court of the events, and that the court would not accept those claims as factual to some degree if there was not substantial evidence to collaborate his story and warrant a trial, especially in a constitutional challenge.

[NiceGuy53]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Is that a yes dickweed?

That you 2 are butt buddies. Too bad for you that he is only CBJ!