Cops gone wild

[KK]

http://newstome.blog.ajc.com/2014/1...er-car-thief-alleges-meth-find/?__federated=1

Man killed by cops after car thief alleges meth find

By George Mathis
A Georgia man was killed by police executing a search warrant obtained after a car thief told police he stole methamphetamine from the dead man’s vehicle, media reports say.
According to WMAZ in Macon, the car thief broke into a pickup truck in Laurens County, near Dublin, and stole some items on the night of Sept. 22 or the predawn hours of Sept. 23.
The thief then stole an SUV from the home, a Lincoln Aviator, and drove to Dublin, according to police.
The homeowner, David Hooks, a 59-year-old grandfather and businessman, reported the missing SUV.
At about 3:45 p.m. on Sept. 24, police arrested Rodney Garrett, who admitted stealing the SUV and said the 20 grams of meth police found on him were not his, but had been stolen from Hooks’ pickup truck.
Would police believe such a story?
Apparently so, because at 10 p.m. the same day Laurens deputies got a non-attorney deputy magistrate to sign off on a search warrant, according to Mitchell Shook, the attorney representing the Hooks family.
An hour after getting the search warrant, Shook said David Hooks’ wife saw camouflaged men in her yard with guns and told her husband.
David Hooks’ final act was to arm himself with a shotgun.
“The [deputies] broke down the back door of the family’s home and entered, firing an excessive sixteen shots. There is no evidence that David Hooks ever fired a weapon,” said Shook, who also says the warrant did not have a “no-knock” clause and therefore required law enforcement to identify themselves.
The Georgia Bureau of Investigation is investigating the shooting but said it would make no comment until the investigation is complete, says The Macon Telegraph.
The sheriff’s department also refuses comment.
Police searched the home for 44 hours and found no drugs, says Shook, who says the “true facts of this tragedy are in stark contrast to … reports released by law enforcement.”
Shook told the Macon Telegraph that Hooks owns a construction company that does work on military bases and has passed background checks by state and federal authorities.
“This is not a person who needs to be involved in criminal activity for financial gain. He did very well financially,” Shook said.

So tell me why the deputies shouldn't be lined up and executed along with the deputy magistrate.

 

[LTC8K6]

It is astonishing how easy it is to get a warrant.

If any idiot says something to a cop, that's enough to get a warrant to bust into your home.

It seems like this warrant would be considered invalid by any honest judge.

 

[Raizinman]

QUOTE: "An hour after getting the search warrant, Shook said David Hooks’ wife saw camouflaged men in her yard with guns and told her husband.
David Hooks’ final act was to arm himself with a shotgun." END QUOTE


The above is what bothers me. Even police in Camouflaged Uniform have badges and look like police, not Billy Bob the deer hunter. If I saw this outside my windows, I think I would be calling the police first and then grabbing my gun second. Either way, the police powers in the US have changed drastically which is more along the line of shoot first, ask questions only if they survive. If they survive, it only means you didn't shoot enough.

In hindsight, He probably should have grabbed his video camera first. His life insurance will likely believe the police report and due to a criminal action will not pay off. If his video camera was working he could have received millions from the city for his wife and kids for an unjustified murder.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Will police conduct ever be subject to the same standard the rest of us are?

 

[Rakehellion]

In hindsight, He probably should have grabbed his video camera first. His life insurance will likely believe the police report and due to a criminal action will not pay off. If his video camera was working he could have received millions from the city for his wife and kids for an unjustified murder.

Men outside your house with guns and your first though is to grab a video camera. Facebook has rotted America's minds.

 

[Genx87]

This is another example in a long list of why people trust the police less and less. The result will be people shooting back at the police or outright ambushing them like the guy in PA. If we got rid of the war on drugs it would help curtail a lot of this bullcrap.

 

[Kadarin]

The police of course will be exonerated, having been found to have "followed proper established procedures"...

 

[JEDIYoda]

in before Merg enters the thread to say the police were well within their rights..lolol

 

[The Merg]

in before Merg enters the thread to say the police were well within their rights..lolol

If they didn't follow the rules/law, they should be punished for it.

What I do find ironic though is that in other threads, the police are supposed to take someone's word as to what a situation is because they have nothing else to contradict it. Here, you have someone saying that they stole the meth from a car they broke into. The thief has no incentive to lie there, he is still admitting possession and that he broke into a car. So, here the police are not supposed to take someone at their word without anything to contradict it?

I am also interested to see what their uniforms actually were. I've never seen/heard of a local police department using camo uniforms. I also wonder who the homeowner thought those people were as you don't ever hear about home invasions by people wearing camo uniforms (I'm not blaming the homeowner here, just truly curious).

From what I've read, I don't know why they would have considered this to be a no knock warrant. If the officers didn't have the authority to perform a no-knock and still executed it as a no-knock then they should be held liable to whatever injuries/deaths that are caused from it.

Remember, it's also the courts that have used the reasonable test to determine the liability of cops and not the cops themselves. So while a lot of hatred is directed at cops for "getting away" with things, it is ultimately not up to the cops themselves, but the courts that have made the determination.

- Merg

 

[positivedoppler]

They were within their rights. All your base are belong to us. The police are like sharks drawn towards blood when they can tie anyone with hints of wealth to drugs. Easy payday for them.

 

[The Merg]

They were within their rights. All your base are belong to us. The police are like sharks drawn towards blood when they can tie anyone with hints of wealth to drugs. Easy payday for them.

Cuz cops are so well off from all these paydays...

- Merg

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Quote from Merg; "The thief has no incentive to lie there,"
WHAT? the first words out of the mouth of a perp when drugs are found in a vehicle are,--- those aren't mine!

 

[realibrad]

If they didn't follow the rules/law, they should be punished for it.

What I do find ironic though is that in other threads, the police are supposed to take someone's word as to what a situation is because they have nothing else to contradict it. Here, you have someone saying that they stole the meth from a car they broke into. The thief has no incentive to lie there, he is still admitting possession and that he broke into a car. So, here the police are not supposed to take someone at their word without anything to contradict it?

I am also interested to see what their uniforms actually were. I've never seen/heard of a local police department using camo uniforms. I also wonder who the homeowner thought those people were as you don't ever hear about home invasions by people wearing camo uniforms (I'm not blaming the homeowner here, just truly curious).

From what I've read, I don't know why they would have considered this to be a no knock warrant. If the officers didn't have the authority to perform a no-knock and still executed it as a no-knock then they should be held liable to whatever injuries/deaths that are caused from it.

Remember, it's also the courts that have used the reasonable test to determine the liability of cops and not the cops themselves. So while a lot of hatred is directed at cops for "getting away" with things, it is ultimately not up to the cops themselves, but the courts that have made the determination.

- Merg

Thats because you cannot disprove a negative. The burden of proof is on the person making the accusation. If a cop suspects someone of committing a crime, its the cops duty to establish why. The idea that people are considered guilty until they prove themselves innocent was used to entrap people. That is why we flipped it, so that people could not be abused by the state's will.

A cop's job is hard no doubt. Part of what made it so difficult, is that people have the presumption of innocence. Because we have given cops more discretion, they rationally lessened the burden and risk to themselves, at the expense of the public. When you look at the actions of those in articles like this, you get a sense that cops no longer seem themselves as servants of the public, but enforces of justice. That is a very scary idea that is better supported every time we see articles like this.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Cuz cops are so well off from all these paydays...

- Merg

In the last ten years, or so, over 5 BILLION DOLLARS!!! Half of it was CASH!!!

 

[The Merg]

Thats because you cannot disprove a negative. The burden of proof is on the person making the accusation. If a cop suspects someone of committing a crime, its the cops duty to establish why. The idea that people are considered guilty until they prove themselves innocent was used to entrap people. That is why we flipped it, so that people could not be abused by the state's will.

A cop's job is hard no doubt. Part of what made it so difficult, is that people have the presumption of innocence. Because we have given cops more discretion, they rationally lessened the burden and risk to themselves, at the expense of the public. When you look at the actions of those in articles like this, you get a sense that cops no longer seem themselves as servants of the public, but enforces of justice. That is a very scary idea that is better supported every time we see articles like this.

Thanks for finally articulating something well enough that makes sense as opposed to just saying the cops are heavy handed and infringing on people's rights.

With regard to the presumption of evidence, shouldn't cops be held to that same standard though? It seems that here, most people automatically assume the cop is guilty without knowledge of what really happened.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

In the last ten years, or so, over 5 BILLION DOLLARS!!! Half of it was CASH!!!

And that money went into the cops' pockets? Once again, you can find cops are doing so well on the huge salaries that they make every year, right? That's why many have side jobs or need to work overtime to make ends meet. And in many places, cops work for multiple departments because they are only considered to be part time and don't even get health insurance or benefits.

- Merg

 

[realibrad]

Thanks for finally articulating something well enough that makes sense as opposed to just saying the cops are heavy handed and infringing on people's rights.

With regard to the presumption of evidence, shouldn't cops be held to that same standard though? It seems that here, most people automatically assume the cop is guilty without knowledge of what really happened.

- Merg

I would say no, it should not be equal. Being a cop means holding trust. If you have a random Joe make an accusation that a cop is corrupt or broke the law, then I would say investigate but do not punish. If you are getting multiple complaints, then yes, something should be done. Cops hold a lot of power, and that power can easily be abused with very little risk. How many times have we seen a cop accuse someone of some very serious things, only to have a video pop up that disproves it. We give cops inherent credibility, and thus the cops need to be as clean as possible. I would rather over react, then under react in that type of situation.

Most cops are not dirty explicitly. The biggest problem I see, are those who justify their actions thinking they are there to punish. People do funny scary things when given power and little accountability. I would much rather the burden and risk be put onto cops, who have some training, then the public who does not.

 

[Oldgamer]

Is everyone in this thread just ignoring the fact that this warrant was not a "no knock" warrant and the police had to knock and announce themselves with the warrant they were given. Generally cops don't have to prove a negative, that is how the laws like civil forfieture work. The burden was on the drug user/thief who got caught to prove it wasn't his. What disturbs me more is how many people are now accepting this behavior by cops and think this level of force was neccessary.

 

[The Merg]

I would say no, it should not be equal. Being a cop means holding trust. If you have a random Joe make an accusation that a cop is corrupt or broke the law, then I would say investigate but do not punish. If you are getting multiple complaints, then yes, something should be done. Cops hold a lot of power, and that power can easily be abused with very little risk. How many times have we seen a cop accuse someone of some very serious things, only to have a video pop up that disproves it. We give cops inherent credibility, and thus the cops need to be as clean as possible. I would rather over react, then under react in that type of situation.

Most cops are not dirty explicitly. The biggest problem I see, are those who justify their actions thinking they are there to punish. People do funny scary things when given power and little accountability. I would much rather the burden and risk be put onto cops, who have some training, then the public who does not.

I could see that punishment might be different when it comes to them since they hold that power of trust, but shouldn't they be held to the same standard when it comes to accusations?

When a cop is accused of a matter that is considered serious, they can be relieved of duty and are put on administrative leave or restricted duty. Yes, they do get paid during that time, however, it is not because they are getting special treatment, but rather they are being treated somewhat to the extent that they are innocent until proven guilty. However, you can even say they are still being treated as being guilty as they are being removed from work even before they have had a trial or an investigation is complete.

If a cop accuses someone of something and it turns out to be false because of negligence or because they lied, they should be punished for it. If there is overwhelming evidence that they lied, a suspension is definitely appropriate, but until the investigation is complete or trial says they are guilty, they should still have their job. It's happened before that evidence might seem to be overwhelming at first, but turns out to not support the accusation.

With regard to reacting, I'd rather not over-react or under-react. Treat the case as it is and let the chips fall where they fall. To use another case here... If Wilson shot Brown without justification, he should be found guilty of murder. If Wilson believed Brown was an immediate threat to his safety, the shooting should be considered to be justified. Unfortunate, but justified.

- Merg

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I could see that punishment might be different when it comes to them since they hold that power of trust, but shouldn't they be held to the same standard when it comes to accusations?

When a cop is accused of a matter that is considered serious, they can be relieved of duty and are put on administrative leave or restricted duty. Yes, they do get paid during that time, however, it is not because they are getting special treatment, but rather they are being treated somewhat to the extent that they are innocent until proven guilty. However, you can even say they are still being treated as being guilty as they are being removed from work even before they have had a trial or an investigation is complete.

And when a civilian is accused of a crime, they are arrested and put in jail to await indictment and trial. They don't get paid for being locked up, and most jobs are going to fire you if you get arrested and jailed, even if you're later exonerated. So I'm calling bullshit on the "cops get treated just like everyone else!" line in regards to criminal investigation. What other job is going to keep paying you while you await trial? Even the NFL has stopped doing that.

 

[Matt1970]

The thief has no incentive to lie there, he is still admitting possession and that he broke into a car. So, here the police are not supposed to take someone at their word without anything to contradict it?

You should watch COPS sometime. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen them pull something out of someone's car and the driver says it wasn't theirs.

 

[The Merg]

Is everyone in this thread just ignoring the fact that this warrant was not a "no knock" warrant and the police had to knock and announce themselves with the warrant they were given. Generally cops don't have to prove a negative, that is how the laws like civil forfieture work. The burden was on the drug user/thief who got caught to prove it wasn't his. What disturbs me more is how many people are now accepting this behavior by cops and think this level of force was neccessary.

Nope. I already said that if the warrant was not a no-knock and the cops ignored it that they should be held accountable. Remember though, that it is the courts that established the reasonableness test when it comes to establishing liability for police officers.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

You should watch COPS sometime. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen them pull something out of someone's car and the driver says it wasn't theirs.

Yup. Or even when something is removed from their pocket they say that those aren't their pants!

Legally though, that argument with finding something in the car actually holds water. While it meets probable cause for the officer to arrest someone for finding something illegal in their car, without any further evidence or statements, the person will generally be found not guilty as it does not arise to the level of no reasonable doubt. The not my pants argument, not so much.

- Merg

 

[NoStateofMind]

Nope. I already said that if the warrant was not a no-knock and the cops ignored it that they should be held accountable. Remember though, that it is the courts that established the reasonableness test when it comes to establishing liability for police officers.

- Merg

Yes, let's do remember. We know who protects their own.

 

[The Merg]

And when a civilian is accused of a crime, they are arrested and put in jail to await indictment and trial. They don't get paid for being locked up, and most jobs are going to fire you if you get arrested and jailed, even if you're later exonerated. So I'm calling bullshit on the "cops get treated just like everyone else!" line in regards to criminal investigation. What other job is going to keep paying you while you await trial? Even the NFL has stopped doing that.

Actually, in many cases the police will complete their investigation before a warrant is issued, especially when it comes to homicides. And once the warrant is served, it's up to the court if they will let the person out on bail. In many cases, the prosecutors will take the case straight to a grand jury for indictment. If an indictment is handed down, a warrant is issued by the court at that time.

And I've seen plenty of teachers accused of crimes and they have been suspended pending the outcome of their case. Unfortunately, if you are in a right-to-work state, your company can fire you if they hear you've been arrested as they can fire you for any reason as long as it is not discriminatory. That doesn't make it right though.

And there are plenty of jobs that just because you get arrested doesn't mean you will instantly lose your job. If you think that everyone that is charged with a crime is fired, that's just crazy.

As for the NFL, they are a profit-making machine and only changed how they are doing things to protect their self-image.

- Merg