OK, let's spell out what that means.
e.
Originally Posted by ExNYer
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