How the producer and the person typing up the graphics didn't question this is inexplicable. It is very much a Ron Burgundy moment. In fact, the new "Anchorman" movie should incorporate it.
Your dollars at work, thank you officers for protecting us by assaulting the citizens you are sworn to protect.
KTVU producer Mike Ock took full responsibility for the error.
I saw it too!
David, there was a fifth pilot on board as well: Yu Misty Joak
@David Yun, ha ha ha ha ha ha. I hope you're joking.
I think David works for KTVU.
Really, David? Really?
Ouch. HOW did they go for this???
i dont even get it...she pronounced it "Fook" not "f*ck" so what is the mistake...its the guy's name after all?
Hey thats ME! My derby name was Block-N-Deck-her #7 for the North Star Rollergirls! - Alicia Leafgreen
Shame on You for that ridiculous apology, and honestly What a bunch of Garbage! Who Cares why they were called to the house, or by whom! It's plain as day there were NO Exigent Circumstances requiring Police to breakdown the door. They Issued UNLAWFUL commands to these homeowners, and BURGLARIZED their home and ASSAULTED them when the Owners refused to comply with the commands. Police have no authority to come onto private property without a Warrant or Emergency/Exigent Circumstances. Neither of those conditions were met. These criminals with Badges should be in Federal Prison for civil rights violations.... since we know the Sheriff is too much of a Coward to charge them as they should be!
In a situation like this it is perfectly acceptable for the police to enter the residence; the phone call about the domestic disturbance provides exigent circumstances. The police acted under the suspicion of further potential harm to either the children or one of the spouses. They can't just take the word of the wife who is locked in a house with a man who may pose a threat to her and refuses to talk to the police. In a situation like this if the police were to leave without even talking face to face with the suspects and then the dispute led to a murder it would be a huge failure and the department would still be blamed for not stoping it.
The reality of policing is that the police can do what ever they want, warrant's do discourage police misconduct but they mainly serve to protect evidence which in this case is irrelevant. The police were responding to exigent circumstances, not seeking to search the house for evidence. The police know that they can't just bust down a door and search a house. By not complying the resident gave the police the lawful right to search the area incident to arrest.
Had the resident complied there would be little grounds for arrest, forced entry, or any search of the residence. That being said from what is visible in the video it doesn't appear that there was reason to tase the resident but as long as the officer can articulate his reasoning it's justifiable.
@leha, to get this straight is actually easy: if the police have suspicions about illegal activity, they obtain the warrant. This should have happened in Cleveland, and this should have happened in this case. However, the judge usually only issues the warrant when there's enough evidence for the entry. A single call is not nearly enough, i.e. in this case if the police followed the law, not only they wouldn't be able to enter without the warrant, but, assuming that the call was all they had, they wouldn't obtain the warrant as well - in which case they have to leave. In Cleveland, a single call wouldn't be enough either, but when the number of tips and suspicions accumulated, the warrant would be issued. This is how it's supposed to work in civilized society, and this is how it has been working for many decades in our country.
Not only the officers won't be charged with anything, but from the comments so far made by Parish, they will be rewarded. Contrary to numerous rulings of the Supreme Court, Parish claims that the call from 3rd party is already the exigent circumstance, and no warrant is required. I.e. all it takes for the police to break into your home, is somebody's word that violence _might_ be going on inside.
Note that the crime the occupants were arrested for was not anything related to the violence. It was obstruction, i.e. from the police's standpoint, not cooperating with their investigation (by not coming out or opening the door) is a crime by itself. Equally, the taser was used as punishment for non-compliance, i.e. for refusing to lay on the ground.
Don't you feel somewhat obliged, as a "journalist", to investigate and explain the overlap in the "most likely" and "least likely" lists; ie "surgeon" vs "doctor"?
Wow, what is going on there, I certainly hope those police get appropriate action against them for inappropriate behavior....fire them.....they work for us....
are we to be frightened of the people who are working to protect us.....at least are suppose to be....
Seems like police want it both ways: in this case, they had to enter because the safety of the parties inside demanded it. In the case of the three girls who were held captive for ten years, police were required to ignore the calls to help them, because they didn't have a warrant. I sure would like to get this straight...
We're always told that the taser is an alternative to deadly force: There was nothing in this even that warranted the use of firearms, so clearly it's not considered an alternative to deadly force by the police officers carrying it.
To Parish's "not to cooperate with law enforcement." comment, it sure seems to me that someone kicking down my door without a warrant or probable cause is not involved in law enforcement. Unless there were some amazing mitigating circumstances, I hope the officer who came through that door is charged with a felony that adequately captures violently breaking into an occupied home with the intent of harming the inhabitants.
fantastic, i live in Santa Rosa, and hubby and I love this place, such a landmark....much gratitude Zach~thank you!
North Bay Bohemian
2016 Metro Newspapers. All rights reserved.
Website powered by Foundation