So, you're a former LEO and you didn't pick up on the fact that the case involved a KIDNAPPING?
Hmm.
Ever shoot a dog or two?
Did the dogs live there?
Tell me, which is more important ~ the kidnapping, the guy attacked an officer (doing nothing but standing there), the 911 call the lady made, or the need to discuss points of law that don't apply to the case.
That's four choices ~ (no peeking at other answers either). Back in a couple of minutes.
Thank you for that contribution.
Funny how one little detail changes everything.
I can further assume that if a bank calls the cops during a holdup, the responding swat team Does not need to have a warrant.
Funny how that works.
I fell for it again.
Assuming that the MSM will give you all the crucial facts up front.
Looks like your brave stand was solid, FRiend, and we both agree that the judge is a wacko to word his ruling the way he did, right?
Someone finally laid out the facts. Is this your take?
Gondring’s summary:
- - -
[quote]
It’s all laid out in the opinion. As I recall...
His wife called 911 because he was throwing stuff around. He hadn’t actually hit her.
When the police officer arrived, he said he was leaving (she was throwing him out) and that the officer wasn’t needed. But when the wife went back inside, the husband went to the doorway and blocked the officer from entering while the wife was telling him to let the officer in.
There was a scuffle and the guy tried to get jury instructions entered about blocking illegal entry. These were denied and the guy appealed. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the case didn’t really have to go into the illegal entry arena because it was conceded as likely legal entry even in dissenting opinion.
[unquote]