Police Go To Wrong House and Hold Circuit Coourt Judge At Gun Point - Page 3

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Police Go To Wrong House and Hold Circuit Coourt Judge At Gun Point (Page 3 of 5)

Posted: 4/28/2011 3:59:16 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Seems like these events are posted on a weekly basis. How much more frequently must they actually occur?

Team One, go to wrong house, execute raid!

Team Two, find a dog on a chain you could easily walk around, kill it!

Team Three, harass open-carrying citizen!

Team Four, log on to ARFcom, make excuses!

I really shouldn't be laughing at this, but I am.

Posted: 4/28/2011 4:02:11 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Police have no duty to protect you, they do have a duty to not run into your house and shoot you in a seemingly random manner.

Police may not have a duty to protect you individually, but they also have procedures that ahve to be followed based on the type of call.
I don't recall seeing where anyone was shot in a random manner in this incident

Quoted:
Realizing that you don't have a proper address, you don't draw down on the first occupied home you come across. That doesn't mean that you have to be careless, but you don't get to act like DEVGRU.

They didn't know where they had to be, so they guessed. (Nothing is wrong with guessing/assuming. Otherwise, they might as well just sit at the station)

It's Easter so: lots of people are at home, and with families. This is not a situation where a person is wandering around a store or factory at 3am. The homeowners were where they had a legal right to be doing what they had a legal right to do.

They thought she was a burglar because why? Is it typical to dress in pajamas and lounge around the home prior to burgaling?

Saying "sorry" goes a long way as well.

Did they guess or did they see something suspicious. You mention both in your post. If they see something suspicious and are acting on it in a manner appropriate for the type of call, thats not really a guess.

Posted: 4/28/2011 4:03:59 PM EDT

[#3]

I hope the judge apologized to the cops for being there.

Posted: 4/28/2011 4:10:33 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Perhaps I am ignorant and naive, but I don't see why every single no knock raid isn't staked out by officers on the scene to make damn sure they've got the right address.

Don't trust what your dispatcher tells you or what you see on some piece of paper. Don't make a move until you've confirmed with your own eyes that what you're doing is right.

If this means staking out a location for hours to see if Johnny Crackhead goes into or out of the house then so be it.

Wait around? Cops are busy people. It ain't like they can sit around all day eatin' donuts....oh wait a min....

Seriously though, violating someone rights may be expensive but it's quick and it's only those anonymous

taxpayers that will foot the bill. It's what they do.

Posted: 4/28/2011 4:20:13 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Police have no duty to protect you, they do have a duty to not run into your house and shoot you in a seemingly random manner.

Police may not have a duty to protect you individually, but they also have procedures that ahve to be followed based on the type of call.
I don't recall seeing where anyone was shot in a random manner in this incident

I love how you had to qualify it by saying "in this incident.".

Posted: 4/28/2011 4:27:50 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The call to police said there might be a burglar inside 235 Southwest 4th Street. But there is no 235. Only 236 and 230.

Arriving police outside spotted someone inside 230 – Neville Scarlett was in the kitchen cleaning up the Easter dinner plates - and thought he might be the burglar.
He was not.

Moments earlier, the same person who called police also called the Scarlett’s to warn them about a possible burglar outside. Fearful, Carmita lowered the kitchen window shade. That’s when she heard someone hit the window with something metallic. She says she saw a gun pointed directly at her.

Sounds relatively reasonable to me. I am by no means a cop defender or a holster sniffer, but this one doesn't sound all that bad.

Exactly where in there was there any reason for the officer to draw a gun? Or do anything but knock on the door and politely ask the residents if they've seen anything suspicious?

Didn't get all dressed up for nothing -

Posted: 4/28/2011 4:32:04 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Perhaps I am ignorant and naive, but I don't see why every single no knock raid isn't staked out by officers on the scene to make damn sure they've got the right address.

Don't trust what your dispatcher tells you or what you see on some piece of paper. Don't make a move until you've confirmed with your own eyes that what you're doing is right.

If this means staking out a location for hours to see if Johnny Crackhead goes into or out of the house then so be it.

Wait around? Cops are busy people. It ain't like they can sit around all day eatin' donuts....oh wait a min....

Seriously though, violating someone rights may be expensive but it's quick and it's only those anonymous

taxpayers that will foot the bill. It's what they do.

Re-task speed-trap enforcement to actually catching criminals and preventing these kinds of mistakes. Solutions we can all get-behind!!!

Wait, no money in that is there?

Oh well, I tried.

Posted: 4/28/2011 4:37:05 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This seems to be one of the growing problems with LE today, looks like too much fucking guessing and very little verifying on the part of the LE followed by a lot of fucking attitude from them when they fuck up.

yeah it has nothing to do with joe citizen calling the cops on his cell phone and giving bad info.

That may the case -
I do remember something about being held to a higher standard and problem solving 101, i.e. address does not exist, what should we do next ?

Posted: 4/28/2011 5:07:40 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If they confirm an address different than what the reporting party advised you nail the dispatcher (or call taker whoever sent the troops after the wrong address) to a cross.

The dispatcher can only go off the info on their screens and what a caller has told them. The dispatcher doesn't have ESP to know what the true address is.
I've already talked about being sent on 911 calls where the phone was switched to a house across the county from the address listed and the phone records weren't updated.

Trust me I do understand, having twice been dispatched to an address that was actually in a neighboring county. I meant to imply that if they verify information that is not what they have been given or have reason to believe is correct then that's where the blame should be placed.

Posted: 4/28/2011 7:43:33 PM EDT

[#10]

Each of these cops will sooner or later end up in the judge's court room.

Watch the hilarity ensue.

Posted: 4/28/2011 11:29:20 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Each of these cops will sooner or later end up in the judge's court room.

Watch the hilarity ensue.

[Judge]U Look Familiar.

[Judge]
[Officer] oh shit.

[Officer]

Posted: 4/29/2011 8:36:30 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Each of these cops will sooner or later end up in the judge's court room.

Watch the hilarity ensue.

[Judge]U Look Familiar.

[Judge]
[Officer] oh shit.

[Officer]

Add to this:
[Judge]( After listening to 4 hours of officer's testimony) The jury will disregard all of the officers statements.
[Officer] (Seeing case he has been working on night and day for the last 6 months taking wing and flying out the window) sigh
{Judge} Wink, I remembered.

Posted: 4/29/2011 8:38:14 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Each of these cops will sooner or later end up in the judge's court room.

Watch the hilarity ensue.

[Judge]U Look Familiar.

[Judge]
[Officer] oh shit.

[Officer]

Add to this:
[Judge]( After listening to 4 hours of officer's testimony) The jury will disregard all of the officers statements.
[Officer] (Seeing case he has been working on night and day for the last 6 months taking wing and flying out the window) sigh
{Judge} Wink, I remembered.

In reality it would be a recusal or an easy reason to justify an appeal.

Posted: 4/29/2011 8:54:50 AM EDT

[#14]

I feel like I've read this before.

Posted: 4/29/2011 9:10:42 AM EDT

[#15]

Or...

"Well, as I entered the yard, and approached the window over the kitchen sink, I saw the suspect make a furtive movement with a large kitchen knife. At that point I determined that the suspect was an immediate threat, so I drew down, and bladed at 45 degrees to deal with the situation sir. It was later determined that we were at the wrong address and the "suspect" was simply holding the knife as she was washing dishes".

Posted: 4/29/2011 9:14:26 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Each of these cops will sooner or later end up in the judge's court room.

Watch the hilarity ensue.

[Judge]U Look Familiar.

[Judge]
[Officer] oh shit.

[Officer]

Add to this:
[Judge]( After listening to 4 hours of officer's testimony) The jury will disregard all of the officers statements.
[Officer] (Seeing case he has been working on night and day for the last 6 months taking wing and flying out the window) sigh
{Judge} Wink, I remembered.

In reality it would be a recusal or an easy reason to justify an appeal.

Arfcom wants judges to be impartial, unless they are dealing with the police.
Nothing will happen to these officers, they acted correctly using the best information they had.
The only thing I find fault with is no apologizing, but at the same time, I've dealt with the hysterical person screaming "why you all got them guns out" and rather than try to explain the hows, why, and reasons, it is easier to say "I'm out of here"

Posted: 4/29/2011 9:21:09 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Each of these cops will sooner or later end up in the judge's court room.

Watch the hilarity ensue.

[Judge]U Look Familiar.

[Judge]
[Officer] oh shit.

[Officer]

Add to this:
[Judge]( After listening to 4 hours of officer's testimony) The jury will disregard all of the officers statements.
[Officer] (Seeing case he has been working on night and day for the last 6 months taking wing and flying out the window) sigh
{Judge} Wink, I remembered.

In reality it would be a recusal or an easy reason to justify an appeal.

Arfcom wants judges to be impartial, unless they are dealing with the police.
Nothing will happen to these officers, they acted correctly using the best information they had.
The only thing I find fault with is no apologizing, but at the same time, I've dealt with the hysterical person screaming "why you all got them guns out" and rather than try to explain the hows, why, and reasons, it is easier to say "I'm out of here"

That's the exact attitude that people have a problem with. How the fuck are they supposed to react? Happy and shit that they had guns pointed at them? They acted correctly? Who the fuck burglarizes a house and does the damn dishes?

ETA: Even if they were justified in what they did, legally and procedurally, and I'm not sure they are, that doesn't mean you don't fucking say you're sorry when you draw down on innocent citizens. Jesus, does this really need explaining?

Posted: 4/29/2011 9:38:42 AM EDT

[#18]

I know cops want to go home safely to their families at night.

But do so the citizens. Citizens have just as much right to be safe and secure as do the police. That why the CITIZENS pay the salaries of LE. If LE can't make that happen, they aren't much use to us.

Yes, they should be apolgizing profusely, not making excuses "we felt threatened by a woman in pajama washing dishes."

That's a feeble damned excuse.

Posted: 4/29/2011 9:44:13 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Each of these cops will sooner or later end up in the judge's court room.

Watch the hilarity ensue.

[Judge]U Look Familiar.

[Judge]

[Officer] oh shit.

[Officer]

Add to this:

[Judge]( After listening to 4 hours of officer's testimony) The jury will disregard all of the officers statements.

[Officer] (Seeing case he has been working on night and day for the last 6 months taking wing and flying out the window) sigh

{Judge} Wink, I remembered.

In reality it would be a recusal or an easy reason to justify an appeal.

Arfcom wants judges to be impartial, unless they are dealing with the police.

Nothing will happen to these officers, they acted correctly using the best information they had.

The only thing I find fault with is no apologizing, but at the same time, I've dealt with the hysterical person screaming "why you all got them guns out" and rather than try to explain the hows, why, and reasons, it is easier to say "I'm out of here"

That's the exact attitude that people have a problem with. How the fuck are they supposed to react? Happy and shit that they had guns pointed at them? They acted correctly? Who the fuck burglarizes a house and does the damn dishes?

ETA: Even if they were justified in what they did, legally and procedurally, and I'm not sure they are, that doesn't mean you don't fucking say you're sorry when you draw down on innocent citizens. Jesus, does this really need explaining?

Judge: You're one of those cops who can't read correct?

Cop who can't read: Yes your Honor.

Judge (to jury): The jury is instructed to disregard any part of this officer's testimony that involves numbers or letters.

Posted: 4/29/2011 9:53:38 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Each of these cops will sooner or later end up in the judge's court room.

Watch the hilarity ensue.

[Judge]U Look Familiar.

[Judge]
[Officer] oh shit.

[Officer]

Add to this:
[Judge]( After listening to 4 hours of officer's testimony) The jury will disregard all of the officers statements.
[Officer] (Seeing case he has been working on night and day for the last 6 months taking wing and flying out the window) sigh
{Judge} Wink, I remembered.

In reality it would be a recusal or an easy reason to justify an appeal.

Arfcom wants judges to be impartial, unless they are dealing with the police.
Nothing will happen to these officers, they acted correctly using the best information they had.
The only thing I find fault with is no apologizing, but at the same time, I've dealt with the hysterical person screaming "why you all got them guns out" and rather than try to explain the hows, why, and reasons, it is easier to say "I'm out of here"

It may be easier, but it sure looks a lot worse when a jury or review board hears about how you handled your fuck up.

Sometimes it's not about the letter of the law or policies - it's about how you handle what most people are going to view as a screw up.

Posted: 4/29/2011 9:54:28 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
And of course, the usual from the cops:

She said other officers explained to her that they have families, too, and they want to make it home alive each night. But she says they did so in a condescending way, lecturing her as if she’d done something wrong.

"I know no one apologized, OK? And, to me, if you want to make amends for something, you want to make peace, you apologize, you shake, you leave, you say ‘I'm sorry,’" she said. "And, you know, the cop that had his gun on me, he said ‘well, I was fearing for my life.’ I said ‘really! You were fearing for your life? Really?’ He said ‘forget it - I'm out of here.'"

Carmita says she just wanted someone that night to apologize.

I've said this in other threads, and nobody behind the blue wall ever listens. There are all sorts of studies, both mathematical and subjective ones, all of which say that doctors and lawyers who immediately acknowledge, explain, and try to fix a mistake they've made get sued and disciplined by licensing authorities FAR less often than the ones who shut up, walk away, and pretend like they did nothing wrong.

These cops are now FUCKED for life any time they are before that judge, and all they had to do was apologize, explain the situation, and let the people there know what happened.

you're forgetting police are forced into their jobs, where they work and what they do. they have no say in this and shouldn't be held accountable.

I wasn't aware that we'd instituted a draft for local police here in America.

Posted: 4/29/2011 9:57:35 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This seems to be one of the growing problems with LE today, looks like too much fucking guessing and very little verifying on the part of the LE followed by a lot of fucking attitude from them when they fuck up.

yeah it has nothing to do with joe citizen calling the cops on his cell phone and giving bad info.

It has more to do with the PD's lack of professional responsibility. If you believe everything that the person on the phone tells you, you need to hang up the guns.

Amen.

I am getting really tired of 911 calls being treated as gospel, and all of this crap about how "we are required to respond to every call." Really? So if I call 911 and report that my wife won't hand over the TV remote, you're going to send an officer, no matter how ridiculous the complaint?

Here's some rational thought:

1. The same idiots who lie and exaggerate when you show up, are the kind calling 911.

2. No, you're not obligated to respond to every call. Maybe there is some policy that says that in your agency, but that concept exists nowhere in real law.

3. You're certainly not obligated to believe everything you hear from dispatch.

Posted: 4/29/2011 9:59:33 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The dispatcher could have made the error on the address.

More likely the original caller. Happens all the time. People don't give you an exact or a correct address, usually because they just don't know, and then you have to sort it out when you get on scene.

So when you have no clue which house is the subject of the call, you just point guns at every door in the neighborhood and order people out, until it's "sorted out?"

Yeah. Sounds reasonable.

Posted: 4/29/2011 10:02:48 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Each of these cops will sooner or later end up in the judge's court room.

Watch the hilarity ensue.

[Judge]U Look Familiar.

[Judge]
[Officer] oh shit.

[Officer]

Add to this:
[Judge]( After listening to 4 hours of officer's testimony) The jury will disregard all of the officers statements.
[Officer] (Seeing case he has been working on night and day for the last 6 months taking wing and flying out the window) sigh
{Judge} Wink, I remembered.

In reality it would be a recusal or an easy reason to justify an appeal.

Arfcom wants judges to be impartial, unless they are dealing with the police.
Nothing will happen to these officers, they acted correctly using the best information they had.
The only thing I find fault with is no apologizing, but at the same time, I've dealt with the hysterical person screaming "why you all got them guns out" and rather than try to explain the hows, why, and reasons, it is easier to say "I'm out of here"

That's the exact attitude that people have a problem with. How the fuck are they supposed to react? Happy and shit that they had guns pointed at them? They acted correctly? Who the fuck burglarizes a house and does the damn dishes?

ETA: Even if they were justified in what they did, legally and procedurally, and I'm not sure they are, that doesn't mean you don't fucking say you're sorry when you draw down on innocent citizens. Jesus, does this really need explaining?

Judge: You're one of those cops who can't read correct?
Cop who can't read: Yes your Honor.
Judge (to jury): The jury is instructed to disregard any part of this officer's testimony that involves numbers or letters.

No, a judge would never be that obvious about it. They are generally much smarter than that.

A truly professional judge would recuse himself. A less professional and vindictive judge would make rulings unfavorable to the officer's case, but not give reasons so as not to create a reversible record on appeal.

Posted: 4/29/2011 10:05:21 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
I bet their cheif is STILL fucking screaming lol

Couple of officers are going to be walking with a limp after that.

Posted: 4/29/2011 10:06:16 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
I know cops want to go home safely to their families at night.

But do so the citizens. Citizens have just as much right to be safe and secure as do the police. That why the CITIZENS pay the salaries of LE. If LE can't make that happen, they aren't much use to us.

Yes, they should be apolgizing profusely, not making excuses "we felt threatened by a woman in pajama washing dishes."

That's a feeble damned excuse.

Even more feeble is the chief who would accept the excuse. My Dad is the chief of an agency here in NKY, and I can guarantee you he'd be knee deep in someone's ass over something like this.

Posted: 4/29/2011 10:14:53 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The dispatcher could have made the error on the address.

More likely the original caller. Happens all the time. People don't give you an exact or a correct address, usually because they just don't know, and then you have to sort it out when you get on scene.

So when you have no clue which house is the subject of the call, you just point guns at every door in the neighborhood and order people out, until it's "sorted out?"

Yeah. Sounds reasonable.

With all the enhanced e911 I've been paying for they had better be able to know what address the call came from.

Where they need to go, that's a different story and requires triple digit IQ's in the field.

Posted: 4/29/2011 12:47:47 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
I am getting really tired of 911 calls being treated as gospel, and all of this crap about how "we are required to respond to every call." Really? So if I call 911 and report that my wife won't hand over the TV remote, you're going to send an officer, no matter how ridiculous the complaint?

You got it.
Per General Orders I am required to respond to any 911 call I am dispatched.
The example you posted would be dispatched as a domestic disturbance, and I would be required to fill out a domestic incident form.

Posted: 4/30/2011 4:46:38 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
That's the exact attitude that people have a problem with. How the fuck are they supposed to react? Happy and shit that they had guns pointed at them? They acted correctly? Who the fuck burglarizes a house and does the damn dishes?

ETA: Even if they were justified in what they did, legally and procedurally, and I'm not sure they are, that doesn't mean you don't fucking say you're sorry when you draw down on innocent citizens. Jesus, does this really need explaining?

I can understand people being shook up, but if they are flipping out as he described, then how are you supposed to appologize to them in the middle of their tirade? Not to mention, if you still have an active situation, you don't have a great amount of time to stand around making explainations. You have to get back out there and continue the response to the call.
The officer probably didn't see a person doing dishes, they saw some movement that they couldn't identify, so they investigated with drawn weapons. Once the situation was identified then the response is racheted down.

Quoted:
So when you have no clue which house is the subject of the call, you just point guns at every door in the neighborhood and order people out, until it's "sorted out?"

See above.

Quoted:
I am getting really tired of 911 calls being treated as gospel, and all of this crap about how "we are required to respond to every call." Really? So if I call 911 and report that my wife won't hand over the TV remote, you're going to send an officer, no matter how ridiculous the complaint?

Most of them are going to be smart enough to phrase it differently than what you posed when they make the call..
A few years ago it was Thanksgiving Day. My agency has a relaxed attitude towards working the major holidays: you get to go home for a Thanksgiving meal and respond to calls as needed for that duration. So I sit down at the table and am about to put the first forkfull in my mouth when I was dispatched to a burglary in progress. I go tearing to the scene and find the male complainant. He and the wife had gotten into a fight and she responded by taking the turkey out of the over and going to her moms. He wanted her arrested for stealing the turkey. Needless to say, it didn't happen, and when I got back to my house to enjoy my own meal, everyone aroudn the table got a good laugh. It still gets mentioned every Thanksgiving as a memorable event because they all got to witness some of the BS we deal with.

We routinely go to calls of "people reported fighting" and it turns out to be something minor like what you describe. But it doesn't get reported that way.

Quoted:
Judge: You're one of those cops who can't read correct?
Cop who can't read: Yes your Honor.
Judge (to jury): The jury is instructed to disregard any part of this officer's testimony that involves numbers or letters.

As I said before, the judge will have be recused from any future case involving any of those officers.

Posted: 4/30/2011 5:09:05 AM EDT

[#30]

Apparently the judge had her own gun in hand when they came through the door. She could easily have been killed.

Posted: 4/30/2011 6:17:20 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Judge: You're one of those cops who can't read correct?

Cop who can't read: Yes your Honor.

Judge (to jury): The jury is instructed to disregard any part of this officer's testimony that involves numbers or letters.

As I said before, the judge will have be recused from any future case involving any of those officers.

Why? Are they afraid she'll misread the evidence?

Posted: 4/30/2011 6:21:29 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Apparently the judge had her own gun in hand when they came through the door. She could easily have been killed.

Smith or Taurus?

Did the Police say "Let's get her"? - did she envision watermelon-heads as she raised her gun? .410 or .45 Long Colt?

Posted: 4/30/2011 6:25:58 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
How much longer until a SWAT team no knocks a State Senator's house or Federal judge's home, that would be awesome and epic. Probably the beginning of the end for the no knock warrants.

The real questions is how long before they kill a State Senator or Federal Judge because of the supremacy of officer's safety?

Posted: 4/30/2011 6:27:35 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Seems like these events are posted on a weekly basis. How much more frequently must they actually occur?

Until what?

The Constitution becomes the law of the land again?

Posted: 4/30/2011 6:44:31 AM EDT

[#35]

I'll just chalk this up as the judge getting a little taste of what us lowly peasants have to deal with everyday. Sounds like everyone in that house, on both sides, got to eat a little humble pie. First the Judge's family, then the cops.

Posted: 4/30/2011 6:49:26 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Why? Are they afraid she'll misread the evidence?

The judge will have to recuse herself for the same reasons that any judge has to recuse themselves from a case: a possibility of lack of impartiality or conflict of personal interest that affects the neutrality any judge is supposed to bring to every case they hear.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:03:29 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Why? Are they afraid she'll misread the evidence?

The judge will have to recuse herself for the same reasons that any judge has to recuse themselves from a case: a possibility of lack of impartiality or conflict of personal interest that affects the neutrality any judge is supposed to bring to every case they hear.

That's a real shame - because the Judge is now better educated than she was before. Her real life experiences shouldn't work against her impartiality - if so, that could and does work the other way, every day.

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:10:11 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Apparently the judge had her own gun in hand

News article confirms this statement.

Quoted:

when they came through the door.

Does "they" mean the police? I've never heard of someone having grass in their kitchen. Or heard of a reporter calling any type of kitchen flooring "grass". I suggest you re-read the article..................

Quoted:
She could easily have been killed.

Every, okay - maybe not every single one, police interaction involves a firearm. A deputy just as easily could have been killed by the armed judge.

Brian

Posted: 4/30/2011 7:15:40 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:

And of course, the usual from the cops:

She said other officers explained to her that they have families, too, and they want to make it home alive each night. But she says they did so in a condescending way, lecturing her as if she’d done something wrong.

"I know no one apologized, OK? And, to me, if you want to make amends for something, you want to make peace, you apologize, you shake, you leave, you say ‘I'm sorry,’" she said. "And, you know, the cop that had his gun on me, he said ‘well, I was fearing for my life.’ I said ‘really! You were fearing for your life? Really?’ He said ‘forget it - I'm out of here.'"

Carmita says she just wanted someone that night to apologize.

I've said this in other threads, and nobody behind the blue wall ever listens. There are all sorts of studies, both mathematical and subjective ones, all of which say that doctors and lawyers who immediately acknowledge, explain, and try to fix a mistake they've made get sued and disciplined by licensing authorities FAR less often than the ones who shut up, walk away, and pretend like they did nothing wrong.

These cops are now FUCKED for life any time they are before that judge, and all they had to do was apologize, explain the situation, and let the people there know what happened.

you're forgetting police are forced into their jobs, where they work and what they do. they have no say in this and shouldn't be held accountable.

I wasn't aware that we'd instituted a draft for local police here in America.

I wasn't either but that's how it's been conveyed by a few here.

Posted: 4/30/2011 8:32:49 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Why? Are they afraid she'll misread the evidence?

The judge will have to recuse herself for the same reasons that any judge has to recuse themselves from a case: a possibility of lack of impartiality or conflict of personal interest that affects the neutrality any judge is supposed to bring to every case they hear.

She will not recuse herself from every case involving LE, but guess what, all the cops who appear before her will be wearing that stink. Whether they were there or not.

I kinda hoping she makes the Federal Bench.

Posted: 4/30/2011 8:40:11 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Each of these cops will sooner or later end up in the judge's court room.

Watch the hilarity ensue.

[Judge]U Look Familiar.

[Judge]
[Officer] oh shit.

[Officer]

Add to this:
[Judge]( After listening to 4 hours of officer's testimony) The jury will disregard all of the officers statements.
[Officer] (Seeing case he has been working on night and day for the last 6 months taking wing and flying out the window) sigh
{Judge} Wink, I remembered.

In reality it would be a recusal or an easy reason to justify an appeal.

Arfcom wants judges to be impartial, unless they are dealing with the police.
Nothing will happen to these officers, they acted correctly using the best information they had.
The only thing I find fault with is no apologizing, but at the same time, I've dealt with the hysterical person screaming "why you all got them guns out" and rather than try to explain the hows, why, and reasons, it is easier to say "I'm out of here"

That's the exact attitude that people have a problem with. How the fuck are they supposed to react? Happy and shit that they had guns pointed at them? They acted correctly? Who the fuck burglarizes a house and does the damn dishes?

ETA: Even if they were justified in what they did, legally and procedurally, and I'm not sure they are, that doesn't mean you don't fucking say you're sorry when you draw down on innocent citizens. Jesus, does this really need explaining?

Judge: You're one of those cops who can't read correct?
Cop who can't read: Yes your Honor.
Judge (to jury): The jury is instructed to disregard any part of this officer's testimony that involves numbers or letters.

No, a judge would never be that obvious about it. They are generally much smarter than that.

A truly professional judge would recuse himself. A less professional and vindictive judge would make rulings unfavorable to the officer's case, but not give reasons so as not to create a reversible record on appeal.

A professional police force would see that these things don't happen in the first place, but if they do, they take corrective action.

A simple apology would be a good start. An assurance the officers involved will be reamed is also in order.

It should not matter that she is a judge. What she is is a citizen in the safety of her home. The police screwed up, not her.

Posted: 4/30/2011 8:55:46 AM EDT

[#42]

Meh...

Standards of conduct toward the ruling class and their protectors/muscle is not comparable to the average citizen.

The judge will be pissed, the cronies around the judge will be outraged, the cops will get yelled at and probably sanctioned in some manner, but that will never equate to fewer "mistakes", indiscretions, abuses or shoddy actions towards the citizenry by government authorities and muscle.

Sorry, you're just not important enough to worry about your complaints with the cops.

Its sad, its funny but no real changes will come about.

Posted: 4/30/2011 8:59:48 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Meh...

Standards of conduct toward the ruling class and their protectors/muscle is not comparable to the average citizen.

The judge will be pissed, the cronies around the judge will be outraged, the cops will get yelled at and probably sanctioned in some manner, but that will never equate to fewer "mistakes", indiscretions, abuses or shoddy actions towards the citizenry by government authorities and muscle.

Sorry, you're just not important enough to worry about your complaints with the cops.

Its sad, its funny but no real changes will come about.

Did you read the article?

One of the idiot neighbors couldn't get an address right and the cops went to the house that was the likely place. The MISTAKE was by the person calling it in. Maybe that person needs some sanctions

Posted: 4/30/2011 9:14:58 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Meh...

Standards of conduct toward the ruling class and their protectors/muscle is not comparable to the average citizen.

The judge will be pissed, the cronies around the judge will be outraged, the cops will get yelled at and probably sanctioned in some manner, but that will never equate to fewer "mistakes", indiscretions, abuses or shoddy actions towards the citizenry by government authorities and muscle.

Sorry, you're just not important enough to worry about your complaints with the cops.

Its sad, its funny but no real changes will come about.

Did you read the article?

One of the idiot neighbors couldn't get an address right and the cops went to the house that was the likely place. The MISTAKE was by the person calling it in. Maybe that person needs some sanctions

Yea, I read the article.

Did you read my post?

My comment was about the ramifications of conduct, not whom or whether a "mistake" of some sort was made or the assumptions the cops engaged in.

Maybe less time being a (as you claim) JBT with your knee-jerk defenses and more time reading will help your comprehension.

Posted: 4/30/2011 9:44:31 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I know cops want to go home safely to their families at night.

But do so the citizens. Citizens have just as much right to be safe and secure as do the police. That why the CITIZENS pay the salaries of LE. If LE can't make that happen, they aren't much use to us.

Yes, they should be apolgizing profusely, not making excuses "we felt threatened by a woman in pajama washing dishes."

That's a feeble damned excuse.

Even more feeble is the chief who would accept the excuse. My Dad is the chief of an agency here in NKY, and I can guarantee you he'd be knee deep in someone's ass over something like this.

Sounds par for the course - most politicians don't like the police.

Posted: 4/30/2011 10:29:55 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
She will not recuse herself from every case involving LE, but guess what, all the cops who appear before her will be wearing that stink. Whether they were there or not.

Where did I say every case involving LE?
Why do people read into what I post?
I highly doubt there is any "stink" involved.

Quoted:
I love how you had to qualify it by saying "in this incident.".

And I don't like how some posters try to take two completely seperate incidents and try to stitch them together as if they are connected.

If I were to arrest you tonight for DWI, at trial should I combine facts of your case with facts of the guy I arrested for DWI the next night? No.

Posted: 4/30/2011 10:37:43 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Apparently the judge had her own gun in hand

News article confirms this statement.

Quoted:
when they came through the door.

Does "they" mean the police? I've never heard of someone having grass in their kitchen. Or heard of a reporter calling any type of kitchen flooring "grass". I suggest you re-read the article..................

Quoted:

She could easily have been killed.

Every, okay - maybe not every single one, police interaction involves a firearm. A deputy just as easily could have been killed by the armed judge.
Brian

Okay, but it says she was in her kitchen when in incident started. At some later point she ended up outside. But it was a little hard to follow.

Broward Circuit Court Judge Ilona Holmes, her sister and her sister’s
family says they were ordered at gun point by several Broward Sheriffs
Deputies on Easter Sunday to come out of her sister’s home with their
hands up.

"There's a man with a gun and he's going to shoot
me!!" yelled Carmita. "I thought it was the robber!" Her sister, Judge
Holmes, came running to the kitchen. The judge carries a legal firearm
and immediately pulled it out and held it in her hand.

"She said ‘Who are you!? What are
you doing?!’ He said ‘this is BSO.’ She said, ‘this is Circuit Court
Judge Ilona Holmes!!’” Carmita said.

"'I'm the owner of this home. I'm
Carmita Scarlett. Why are you at my home?’ I kept saying that. They said
‘put your hands up and come outside,'" she said.

.....

"They said, ‘Come out with your hands up!’ She said, ‘I am Circuit Court Judge Ilona Holmes. I am armed.'"

They all slowly went out through a
side door. "She was putting the gun down. They yelled, ‘put the gun
down! Put the gun down!’ Right there, the cop had his gun pointed at
her.

Posted: 4/30/2011 9:55:20 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:
She will not recuse herself from every case involving LE, but guess what, all the cops who appear before her will be wearing that stink. Whether they were there or not.

Where did I say every case involving LE?
Why do people read into what I post?
I highly doubt there is any "stink" involved.

Quoted:
I love how you had to qualify it by saying "in this incident.".

And I don't like how some posters try to take two completely seperate incidents and try to stitch them together as if they are connected.

If I were to arrest you tonight for DWI, at trial should I combine facts of your case with facts of the guy I arrested for DWI the next night? No.

Normal law abiding citizens tend to remember having guns pulled on them for no fucking reason by members of law enforcement, it is a guarantee to change people's perception of members of LE and not in good way. You are so mired in the Blue Culture that you think such things have no negative effect on how people view law enforcement and will not negative effect members of law enforcement.

Posted: 5/1/2011 2:32:20 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Normal law abiding citizens tend to remember having guns pulled on them for no fucking reason by members of law enforcement, it is a guarantee to change people's perception of members of LE and not in good way. You are so mired in the Blue Culture that you think such things have no negative effect on how people view law enforcement and will not negative effect members of law enforcement.

You see though, it isn't "no fucking reason" that brought the officers there. If some people get offended by a drawn gun, maybe thats more of a sad commnetary on society and its unrealistic expectations. Let them go through a few courses on a FATS and see how fast it takes them to draw and fire if they decide that waiting til the last second is the way to go.

Posted: 5/1/2011 5:42:10 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Normal law abiding citizens tend to remember having guns pulled on them for no fucking reason by members of law enforcement, it is a guarantee to change people's perception of members of LE and not in good way. You are so mired in the Blue Culture that you think such things have no negative effect on how people view law enforcement and will not negative effect members of law enforcement.

You see though, it isn't "no fucking reason" that brought the officers there. If some people get offended by a drawn gun, maybe thats more of a sad commnetary on society and its unrealistic expectations. Let them go through a few courses on a FATS and see how fast it takes them to draw and fire if they decide that waiting til the last second is the way to go.

You REALLY need to retire as you can no longer serve your community without being a serious liability. You don't even see it though & will probably argue the fact.

Sad.

Kinda like the end of Old Yeller.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Police Go To Wrong House and Hold Circuit Coourt Judge At Gun Point (Page 3 of 5)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us