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.
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
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.