A legal question for the board

[Titty Meat]

Around 10am this morning while I was working from home I had my screen open to my patio. I hear someone say "yo yo yo" they were really close to my patio. So I go to check it out and it's this random black guy he starts talking to me like he knows me and asks if I can let him into the building. I tell him to **** off and close my patio off and lock it. I call the cops by the time they get here he's already gone and the cops just shrug and tell me he's probably a homeless guy looking for shelter.

In the next few hours I'm told by another neighbor that he got up on her deck which is on the 3rd level and wouldn't go away. Cops never went up there instead just drove around. Another girl told us that same guy tried to follow her home a few weeks ago.

What are my legal rights here if the cops won't do anything but this guy continues to hang around and harass people? I'm not afraid of him myself but I do fear this could possibly end up bad for one of the female neighbors.

[Ming the Merciless]

I got a guy who can help

https://youtu.be/pPd67CEL54E

[Lzen]

Originally Posted by Titty Meat

Idk man that chick gave me her number she's hot enough to make me never post gay shit on here again

We can only hope.

[crazycoffey]

Originally Posted by frozenchief

This is admittedly a long post but there is a lot of mis-information. As background, I have represented numerous people involved in self defense situations and I teach the legal portion of CCW classes in my state. TL;DR version: Johnny is right on point even if I might not handle the situation exactly like he does.

CC states that Johnny is wrong on point 1 regarding police duty to individuals. Actually, Johnny is correct. In Deshaney v. Winnebago, 489 U.S. 189, 195 (1989), the Supreme Court held that “nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.” This means that the State has NO duty to protect any individual. So, imagine that cops are sitting at the station, drinking coffee, eating donuts and watching Jerry Springer when they get a 9-1-1 call that a madman has broken into a woman’s house with an axe. They shrug their shoulders and go back to Jerry Springer. The madman rapes and kills the woman. Are they liable? No. Families of deceased students from the Stoneman school shooting sued the police and guess what? Their case got dismissed because cops are not liable.

Johnny is also correct on point 4. Police reports are inadmissible hearsay. Anything you say, though, is a statement by a party opponent and is generally admissible. If, though, you say anything in your favor, you don’t get to introduce it through someone else. That’s called ‘self-serving hearsay’. You have to take the stand. So why shouldn’t y

You don’t know what other evidence there is. Your statement may be contradicted by someone else.

.

You make a lot of good counterpoints. And I mostly agree with much of your post so I didn’t quote the whole novel. I didn’t respond to Johnny, because I can recognize a dead horse argument. But to clarify on our disagreements.

Point one is technically correct because of qualified immunity (which is actively being overturned in many states and missouri is trying to as well). The individual officer may not get sued. But many are fired, and the city pays liable suits in criminal, civil and even DOJ civil rights investigations that are deemed “lawful” interactions.

So how is that perceived as an officer doesn’t have to protect you? Under qualified immunity the personal assets of the officer and their family is protected. Because they make shit money. But they are an instrument of the governing body in the jurisdiction where they are called to service. You can bet your sweet ass if they freely, overtly or purposely fail to try to protect you from an obvious threat, you can definitely take civil recourse against that governing body.

So. Point one is deceiving.

And on to the reports being hearsay. I can’t wait for a DP to try and trip me up on my testimony and cite my report. Because that never happens…………….

Reports are seized as evidence and treated the same as statements and even physical evidence. A DP may TRY to make a report considered as hearsay, but that would be a case by case basis, not a guaranteed defense to prosecute.


But on a lighter note, keep doing the good CCW stuff, you are an educational bridge between the unknowing, unwilling, ignorant YouTube lawyers like Johnny and the unknowing trying to just understand the world we all live in.

Everyone should know their rights, but I agreed with your post saying how you would interact in a very unfortunate situation. That’s so much better than the “just don’t talk to cops” crowd. Because, brother, people are taking that message literally. About anything. And it’s not helping bridge the disconnection with civilians and LEOs.

Now I have to go to work, get flipped off by 9 year olds, and called a racist 16 times. And that’s hoping for a good day. Peace out.

[kcbubb]

Rent a guard dog and unleash it on him when he’s trespassing.

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by Pablo

That’s not the only option. You can also poison him

with Drano in his OJ...

[threebag]

When you see him, start rolling a condom on and when he notices tell him “You’re just in time”

[Vladimir_Kyrilytch]

Originally Posted by kcbubb

Rent a guard dog and unleash it on him when he’s trespassing.

You can't rent a guard dog. A rented guard dog doesn't know you paid for him to be on your side. It would very likely just attack the person renting it way before any guarding could be done.

I am hoping you can prove me wrong though, ngl.

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

People need to get over the whole, "police will handle it" thing. The police aren't going to handle shit.

I do enjoy the naivete though.

Makes me wonder how many people have had actual LEOs do something to help them in their lifetime...

[frozenchief]

Originally Posted by crazycoffey

Point one is technically correct because of qualified immunity (which is actively being overturned in many states and missouri is trying to as well). The individual officer may not get sued. But many are fired, and the city pays liable suits in criminal, civil and even DOJ civil rights investigations that are deemed “lawful” interactions.

So how is that perceived as an officer doesn’t have to protect you? Under qualified immunity the personal assets of the officer and their family is protected. Because they make shit money. But they are an instrument of the governing body in the jurisdiction where they are called to service. You can bet your sweet ass if they freely, overtly or purposely fail to try to protect you from an obvious threat, you can definitely take civil recourse against that governing body.

So. Point one is deceiving.

And on to the reports being hearsay. I can’t wait for a DP to try and trip me up on my testimony and cite my report. Because that never happens…………….

Reports are seized as evidence and treated the same as statements and even physical evidence. A DP may TRY to make a report considered as hearsay, but that would be a case by case basis, not a guaranteed defense to prosecute.

I see where you are mistaken. You assert that police officers can be sued for violating someone’s constitutional rights, which is correct. But police officers cannot be sued for failing to act. So cops sit and do nothing while they know that someone is breaking into your house? No liability.

Civil suits are suits in torts. Torts have 4 basic elements: duty; breach; causation; damages. The DeShaney case I referred to earlier said that cops have NO duty to protect an individual. There are other Supreme Court cases that say the same thing. If there’s no duty, there can be no breach and thus no liability. The cops in Uvalde, for example, cannot be found liable for just standing around while the guy shot kids and teachers in school.* This is extremely relevant to issues of self defense because it shows that you have no legal justification to rely upon police protection so you should be prepared to defend yourself.

Cops can get sued, though, if they do respond and violate someone’s rights. And many of those suits are pre-empted by qualified immunity, which holds that police are immune from suit if their actions are not a clear violation of constitutional standards. A ‘clear violation’ essentially means that there is prior case law on that subject. It has gotten so strict that it seems that if there is not a case exactly on point, courts find QI. A good source of information about qualified immunity is from the Institute for Justice’s website:

https://ij.org/issues/project-on-imm...ccountability/

The Cato Institute is also active in seeking to end QI. Ironically, neither the Institute for Justice nor the Cato Institute are viewed as left-wing, anti law-and-order groups.

Thus, the arguments that you make about civil lawsuits and QI are not applicable in this case. It is not that it is deceiving but we are talking about two very different issues. When you say that “you can take civil recourse against [a] governing body” if “they [law enforcement] freely, overtly or purposely fail to try to protect you from an obvious threat,” that is just wrong as a matter of law.

As far as police reports, I have never seen them entered as exhibits. I receive them all the time in discovery and I use them to prepare for trial and for cross-examination but in all my jury trials, and I’m north of at least 50, probably 60, felony trials, no police report has ever been admitted because they are hearsay and admission of the report violates my client’s right of confrontation. Maybe they get admitted in civil cases. I don’t know. I’ve never tried a civil case.

I think part of the issue may be in how we are defining terms. When I say ‘admit as evidence,’ I mean that an actual copy of the police report is accepted by the court as evidence and then sent back to the jury when the case is finished. That never happens. But a police officer’s report can be used to impeach an officer’s investigation or observation. It can be used to refresh someone’s recollection. Police officers frequently say, “I cannot remember the answer. Can I refer to my report?” So while the officer may silently read the report, the officer cannot read the report into the record, nor can the report go back to the jury during deliberations. Neither of those can happen because the report is hearsay.

* I said that individual police cannot be held liable. I did not say that they cannot be sued. Anyone can sue anybody else for anything. But as I pointed out in the article I cited, any lawsuit against individual police or police departments will be thrown out at the beginning.

[JohnnyV13]

Originally Posted by crazycoffey

You make a lot of good counterpoints. And I mostly agree with much of your post so I didn’t quote the whole novel. I didn’t respond to Johnny, because I can recognize a dead horse argument. But to clarify on our disagreements.

Point one is technically correct because of qualified immunity (which is actively being overturned in many states and missouri is trying to as well). The individual officer may not get sued. But many are fired, and the city pays liable suits in criminal, civil and even DOJ civil rights investigations that are deemed “lawful” interactions.

So how is that perceived as an officer doesn’t have to protect you? Under qualified immunity the personal assets of the officer and their family is protected. Because they make shit money. But they are an instrument of the governing body in the jurisdiction where they are called to service. You can bet your sweet ass if they freely, overtly or purposely fail to try to protect you from an obvious threat, you can definitely take civil recourse against that governing body.

So. Point one is deceiving.

And on to the reports being hearsay. I can’t wait for a DP to try and trip me up on my testimony and cite my report. Because that never happens…………….

Reports are seized as evidence and treated the same as statements and even physical evidence. A DP may TRY to make a report considered as hearsay, but that would be a case by case basis, not a guaranteed defense to prosecute.


But on a lighter note, keep doing the good CCW stuff, you are an educational bridge between the unknowing, unwilling, ignorant YouTube lawyers like Johnny and the unknowing trying to just understand the world we all live in.

Everyone should know their rights, but I agreed with your post saying how you would interact in a very unfortunate situation. That’s so much better than the “just don’t talk to cops” crowd. Because, brother, people are taking that message literally. About anything. And it’s not helping bridge the disconnection with civilians and LEOs.

Now I have to go to work, get flipped off by 9 year olds, and called a racist 16 times. And that’s hoping for a good day. Peace out.

CC, the suits you refer to are brought under various legal theories of police misconduct (1983 violation, which is federal law civil rights, excessive use of force, etc.) So, yeah, the police departments can be sued, but they can't be sued for failing to protect you.

If the police do protect citizens, (which I do not deny happens) it's sort of a bonus or gift from the state that citizens cannot expect or demand in any way.

Qualified immunity is an offshoot of sovereign immunity, which is a legal precept that goes back to English common law. The whole idea of sovereign immunity is that the crown is immune to laws that apply to everyone else. In essence, these legal duties are something that people lower in the hierarchy have to people higher in the social pyramid, but these duties (where sovereign immunity applies) don't run the opposite way.

So when you say that if police overtly fail to protect you, that citizens can sue the state or local government, that's not true. Unless the police officer violates your civil rights or abuses you, you can't sue.

You might be thinking of a number of cases where municipalities end up compensating citizens when police execute a no knock warrant and they make a mistake about the address. Some tragic cases occur where the unknowing citizen defends themselves with a weapon and gets shot or killed.

The reason a citizen can sue in this situation is not a negligence theory in tort, it's because the warrant is defective and thus their civil rights were violated.

In fact, the state can abuse citizens in rather extreme ways while still remaining immune to tort liability.

Let's take a Kansas case from 5 or 6 years ago. LaMonte McIntyre was wrongfully convicted of murder 1 and spent 22 years in prison before getting exonerated by DNA evidence.

The police investigation and trial were a complete clown show of incompetence and unethical conduct by EVERY PHASE OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.

1. Witness tells police that the shooter "looked like my neice's boyfriend LaMonte"

2. Neice's bf had an ironclad alibi (he was in another city when the shooting took place), but police apparently searched their database for perps named "LaMonte" and came up with a 17-year-old kid with a marijuana possession conviction. Unfortunately for LaMonte McIntyre, he played hookey from school that day and thus had opportunity to commit murder.

3. They take LaMonte's picture to the witness (along with other photographs) and she picks out the kid. Note, no lineup was ever done. The photos had the perps' names on the back and it's highly likely the police nudged the witness toward the "right" photo.

4. Police never search LaMonte's home for the murder weapon, clothes he supposedly was wearing, no chemical tests for residue, no testing his clothes or body for physical evidence linking him to the scene. They simply rely on the eyewitness identification.

5. LaMonte's public defender was later disbarred for incompetence. At trial, the public defender doesn't even challenge the police's ID method, which was in the case file.

6. Kansas later censured both the trial judge and the prosecutor for having an affair and not recusing themselves from cases where they had a clear conflict of interest.

7. The witness tells the prosecutor after the trial that LaMonte couldn't be the killer because he was too short. The prosecutor told the witness that she couldn't do anything about it because the case was with the jury. BTW, this is a blatant and unethical lie for which she should have been disbarred. Instead, she should have called for an immediate conference with the judge and opposing counsel and disclosed this new, exculpatory evidence. BTW, 22 years later, this woman was a federal prosecutor and suffered no consequences b/c the statute of limitations had passed on her conduct. So she didn't even face censure from the KS or Missouri bar.

8. Juror stated after the trial that she thought the state's evidence was questionable, but that LaMonte had to be guilty because his defense attorney didn't seem to be trying very hard.

9. Every aspect of the criminal justice system failed LaMonte: police, defense attorney, prosecution, judge and jury. ANY ONE OF THEM DO THEIR JOB AND HE DOESN'T SPEND 22 YEARS IN PRISON.

10. However, under Kansas law, LaMonte couldn't sue because he received "due process" (a jury trial of his peers with defense counsel).

11. KS state legislature voted to make a special exception for him, and awarded LaMonte $1.5 million for the 22 years he spent in prison and released him as a 44-year-old.

The police investigation of LaMonte was completely incompetent and probably conducted in bad faith, yet LaMonte couldn't sue on that basis. The whole idea that they finger another "LaMonte" as the suspect really screams racism to me. Would this have happened if he was a preppy kid named "Chad" and was going to Rockhurst High? Not likely. A Rockhurst student would have judges, prosecutors, private defense lawyers, law professors, senior police officers, city officials as alums that would make sure that doesn't happen to someone from their community.

I know this b/c I'm a Rockhurst High alum. Hell, just off the top of my head, I could call a number of former federal and Jackson county prosecutors for help, along with a Jackson county city council member who are all former classmates of mine. And I haven't lived in KC in more than 20 years.

Look, I hate screaming racism b/c I think that's WAY overblown in our society. As a half-Filipino who looks completely Caucasian I KNOW most white people don't sit around looking to oppress people of color. However, I do think racism had to be there in the McIntyre case.

[seclark]

Originally Posted by Titty Meat

Idk man that chick gave me her number she's hot enough to make me never post gay shit on here again

Idiot ****ers posting on this thread, and tittie may have had a life altering damn I don’t know what the word is for it, but shut the **** up for a second and impress on this guy to use that phone number for crying out loud.

sec

[TimeForWasp]

Rubber snakes. a camera and post him on youtube.