Replies

The police did not produce a warrant. Aside from being mouthy, the only crime this guy committed was knowing his Constitutional rights.

If the police don’t have a warrant, they have no right to come into your home or demand you come out of it. If the guy just closed the door or didn’t open it to begin with, the cops would’ve had no recourse.

On the other side of the coin, you don’t swat at a hornet’s nest with a broomhandle. Saying that you’re recording them and that you don’t live in a police state isn’t going to make you any friends. Tell them to come back with a warrant and you’ll comply, et voila! No one gets hurt.

Just a few points on your comment. 1. Under certain circumstances a warrant IS NOT necessary before enter another’s home when permission is not given, i.e. fresh pursuit, crime in-progress, known felony suspect within, prevent the destruction of evidence and there's a few others. In this case, it's unknown what the officers were there for in the first place, what they knew or what they THOUGHT they knew. So, as always, the “devil's in the details.” Hope the IA investigation will bring the details to light.

Now on to a point no one else has made (I think). Officers must make life and death decisions on a daily basis. Case in point. In Ohio the officers are being criticized for NOT forcibly going into Castro's house on a “welfare check” which would have discovered those long-held women.

Are the officers always completely right in these situations? No, of course not. But, the courts have consistently ruled that if their motives are pure (reasonable concern for the welfare of those inside) then they are acting in a constitutional manner.

So, let's not be too quick to demonize these officers without knowing all the facts. Just saying.