Police use man's house as survalience against his wishes

P

primalclaws1974

Well-Known Member
Do you guys remember that incident a year or two ago, where the police were putting this man's neighbor under surveillance (not sure the reason), and they asked him if they could use his house as the stakeout. He refused and then refused to answer the door. They burst the door open, threw him to the ground, calling him names and yelling contradicting orders to him. They used his house anyway. Is this not a breach of the Constitution? The military or police cannot take over your home or business for their own purposes without your permission. Needless to say, he's suing, and will likely win if he hasn't already.
 
I didn't remember that and it was scary all right, the police has to follow the law, not break it!
 
I think the police had every right to use his house as a stakeout with or without his permission.Matters of national security affect each and every one of us and it would be paramount for us to cooperate with the security agents for our own security.The police are paid with our tax money so we should expect them to protect us and not hinder their work.
 
I think this is unacceptable, but then again, what can we do about it? The police know people won't mobilize against them; they're too scared. This only happens in countries like the United States where the police has a very high advantage.

In Romania, police officers are rarely armed and rarely fit, so they're a bit afraid of the more muscular people. This is why we don't really have corrupted officers in here, only corrupted bosses.
 
If they really needed to use his house, then surely there's some sort of judicial power that should force the owner to let them use it? Surely there's some piece of paper they should show that gives them the power to take over the house?

Not some excessive use of force by the police that forces it upon him. That behavior just looks totally uncalled for, given what you've said about this episode
 
Would love to hear the legality of this, I think that at least a permit should be obtained and some reimbursement should be offered.
 
jeremy2 said:
I think the police had every right to use his house as a stakeout with or without his permission.Matters of national security affect each and every one of us and it would be paramount for us to cooperate with the security agents for our own security.The police are paid with our tax money so we should expect them to protect us and not hinder their work.
Click to expand...


National security? No. This was a local police force trying to gain intel on a criminal. Most likely it was a drug dealer. You could argue anyone that was a major lawbreaker could be considered a threat to national security, but then you would cutting hairs. It would be easy to use this excuse for anything. I am not a fan of The Patriot Act. The Third Amendment says no soldier can use your home for military purposes in a time of peace. This would apply to police as well.
 
GlacialDoom said:
I think this is unacceptable, but then again, what can we do about it? The police know people won't mobilize against them; they're too scared. This only happens in countries like the United States where the police has a very high advantage.

In Romania, police officers are rarely armed and rarely fit, so they're a bit afraid of the more muscular people. This is why we don't really have corrupted officers in here, only corrupted bosses.
Click to expand...

There are several countries were patrol police do not carry guns. I believe (in London at least) England is one of them. The reasons are not clear to me, but maybe it is so there's no chance of an accidental death of the criminal, officer, or bystander? You are right, most people are intimidated by the police. If it is not the gun itself, it is the power behind it. In a struggle with an officer, where you got arrested, do you think the judge will believe you over an officer? Of course not.
 
I think it is ridiculous that a police should do that a civilian. Just because they are police it doesn't mean that they can force themselves upon people. It really is stupidity.*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top