Posted on 07/06/2013 10:16:43 AM PDT by mandaladon
A family is suing the city of Henderson, Nevada for violating their Third Amendment rights — the constitutional prohibition against quartering soldiers in a private home during peacetime without the owner’s consent.
The Mitchell family says that’s essentially what happened when Henderson police allegedly arrested them for refusing to let officers use their homes for a “tactical advantage” in a domestic violence investigation into a neighbor, according to an official complaint.
Police officers contacted Anthony Mitchell on July 10, 2011, with a request to use his house as a lookout while investigating his neighbor. When Mitchell told police that he did not wish to be involved, the complaint alleges, police decided they would use the residence anyway.
According to Courthouse News Service, the police department decided that if Mitchell refused to leave or open the door, officers would force their way in and arrest him.
Mitchell claims this is exactly what happened. First officers “smashed open” Mitchell’s door with a “metal ram” after he did not immediately open it himself. He then “curled on the floor of his living room, with his hands over his face,” as the police shot Mitchell and his dog — which the family claims did not attack the officers — several times with “pepperball” rounds.
Pepperball is a projectile containing chemical irritant pepper spray, which is released upon impact.
Afterward, Mitchell was arrested for “obstructing a police officer.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
But upon arriving at the commander center, the elder Mitchell was informed the negotiations wouldn’t be taking place, the complaint says. When he decided to leave, he was also arrested...................Seems like we are living in a police state.
Ending the war on drugs would not fix this one, this is a pure attitude-adjustment case.
Being a neighbor of a suspected domestic violence case involves more punishment than being a domestic violence offender.
Many of us tend to support the police because they stand for the rule of law, and against the unruly thugs who threaten our democracy.
Too bad that the police themselves to not have this idealistic philosophy. They are power instruments of a power hungry government and thoughtlessly crush the rights of citizens everywhere. They mostly despise the second amendment, disregard property rights, and cow tow to the politically correct winds from City Hall.
” Many of us tend to support the police because they stand for the rule of law, and against the unruly thugs who threaten our democracy.”
True but in this case you can’t respect the rule of law and support the police. They are the ones disregarding the rule of law.
I have thought for a number of years how to correct this unconstitutional attitude of our “boys in blue”. The fact that they are NOT a para-military organization must be reinforced into them. Re-uniform then into circa 1900 Keystone cops uniforms. That is a lot more civilian than the SWAT outfits that they now desire.
This story if true is frightening.
Nazi Germany is back with a vengeance.
ping
The officers asked plaintiff Michael Mitchell if he would be willing to vacate his residence and accompany them to their 'command center' under the guise that the officers wanted Michael Mitchell's assistance in negotiating the surrender of the neighboring suspect at 363 Eveningside Avenue.
So the question to me turns to: Were officers evacuating neighbors from homes because they were dealing with an armed standoff next door?
If I could find the slightest bit of information as to what was happening on that street at the time, it would be helpful, but so far we have the statements of those who are suing, who of course only mention things that make the defendants look as awful as possible. Not exactly an unbiased account.
Either way, I look forward to seeing this case progress, as there appears to be a great many questions of import hidden within; do police have the right to effectively seize property during an emergency? To eject residents from their home while conducting a police investigation? Or, taken in another manner, seizing a section of Boston in the hunt for a terrorist?
I don't think that officers have much of a leg to stand on using any sort of a defense of 'well, the suspect might have entered the neighbor's home and was holding him hostage' simply because of the ready use of pepper balls. They clearly were attempting to remove him from his home with less than lethal means, hardly the first choice of weapon to use in case of facing an armed suspect.
Myself, I do not know the answers to the questions. I would really need more details to form an opinion; I do not agree with armed troops forcing their way into private residences under the claim of searching for a terrorist without the slightest clue as to where that terrorist might be. But going in armed with any weapon to force the clearance of homes adjacent to a standoff? I've always advocated that people have a God given right to be as stupid as they please, so long as they don't harm others.
Is staying in a house next door to a standoff harming officers by limiting their fields of fire in case of shooting? There seems to be a case there for hindering officers. But without details as to what was happening next door, the answer to the question in case of an investigation, in my opinion, is that officers had no right to enter the property, much less assault and batter the residents.
ping
What ends it is trial conviction and execution.
you don’t ave to vacate your house ecause the police are doing something in the neighborhood. besides if they were worried about shooting into these houses they should have comne out and said so. tired of this police jackbooted thug behavior. departmnents exhibiting this need to be totally dismantled and all new officers brought in that are peace officers, not law enforcement officers.
I've heard it said that the 3rd Amendment was outdated, and I never thought I'd hear of a case where the 3rd comes into play.
Mark
Mark and bump. Thanks for posting.
Actually I think there's a pretty good case for using third-amendment here: with the militarization of the police, to include military weaponry (i.e. that not easily available to normal people
, military tactics, and other military equipment) makes them soldiers in all but the name. It is true that the 4th and 5th were violated, I don't think anyone is arguing they weren't, but the 3rd is a unique angle that hasn't come up often.
They don’t use military tactics, and they don’t have combat training. What they do is nearly completely different. And they lack some of the more powerful light weapons. I’ve done both.
I’ll argue to the contrary on both points. They’re ever more military in name through quite a few implications in “progressive” linguistic activism (”police officers,” “SWAT,” other acronyms, phony rank, myths about tactics, etc.). They’re civilian in tactics, relying on rag bag targets for arrests to be asleep, unguarded and un-drilled. They’re still police.
In saner times, they were policemen, who would engage in rough stuff without backup, if necessary, to make arrests. And hiring and working with prior service combat soldiers didn’t evoke envy or otherwise bother them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.