[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Cops Break Into Innocent Sleeping Woman’s Home, Shoot Her—Now She Faces Life in Prison
Source: From The Trenches/FTP
URL Source: https://fromthetrenchesworldreport. ... he-faces-life-in-prison/258613
Published: Dec 11, 2019
Author: Matt Agorist
Post Date: 2019-12-12 02:25:02 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 17165
Comments: 93

Free Thought Project – by Matt Agorist

Winter Park, FL — Bobbie Sapp, 49, is a registered nurse, who has no criminal past. Despite never having committed a crime, because of the backward justice system in America, coupled with violent police welfare checks, Sapp is now facing the possibility of life behind bars. 

On the night in question, Sapp had done nothing wrong, had committed no crime, and harmed no one—yet police broke into her home, raided her bedroom as she slept, and shot her. Then, they had the audacity to arrest her and charge her with multiple felonies.

Sapp’s nightmare began in September of 2017 as she slept comfortably in her own bed in her own home. Instead of waking up to her alarm that fateful morning, Sapp would wake up to multiple shadowy figures surrounding her in her bedroom, pulling off her covers, yelling at her, tasering her, and eventually, shooting her.

Sapp is so confident that she did nothing wrong that she went on camera recently with News 6 Orlando to tell her side of the story. It is nothing short of shocking. She says the entire incident began because her disgruntled ex-boyfriend used a police welfare check to deliberately harm her. It worked.

“He used this wellness check as a way to put me in harm’s way,” she said.

Indeed, instead of actually investigating the situation by knocking on the door, calling her, or any other number of non-violent means, cops helped this man — who did not live in the house and could have been anyone — break in to her home and then shoot this woman on his behalf.

“My girlfriend was threatening suicide last night, I just came to the house and trying to get in,” Sapp’s ex-boyfriend told the 911 operator.

Sapp says these were all lies. If she actually wanted to kill herself, she could’ve used one of the two guns which she regularly sleeps with. She did not.

“She is very well armed,” Sapp’s ex-boyfriend told the 911 operator when asked if Sapp had a gun.

“She’s threatened suicide by cop before,” he said.

There is no record of Sapp ever attempting to commit suicide by herself or by cop before. Also, if she was trying to commit suicide by cop that night — she would have had to call the cops. She did not call the police.

“I was asleep in my bed. I was not at all contemplating a suicide or suicide by cop,” Sapp told News 6.

Nevertheless, police show up to the home and start taking directions from Sapp’s ex, who did not live there.

“There’s one way into the house to crawl through a window and I don’t want to do that at this point. I want someone here with me,” Sapp’s ex-boyfriend said during the call.

When police arrived on scene, Sapp’s ex showed them how to break into the home and they followed his directions.

“I’m asking if there’s any weapons in the house, he tells me there’s enough weapons in the house to start a revolution,”  officer Jeff Marcum, one of the responding officers, said according to an interview obtained by News 6.

Those weapons consisted of two pistols recovered from Sapp’s bed after she’d been shot.

Police claim that when they were breaking into Sapp’s home that they announced themselves as cops. However, when they got to Sapp’s bedroom, they admit that they did not announce themselves and she was still sleeping. She had no idea they were police.

“We’re yelling at her to, you know, let us see your hands, let us see your hands,” Marcum said.

Because the innocent woman who was just shaken out of sleep by heavily armed strangers in her bedroom, did not immediately begin to prostrate herself at the feet of her home invaders, force was escalated.

“I didn’t have my glasses on, I’m legally blind,” Sapp said. “I couldn’t identify anybody, but I remember there being shadows figures standing in my room. They pulled the covers off me.”

“At that point when she pulled the cover, Ms. Sapp immediately came up with a handgun and pointed it right at us,” Marcum told investigators.

Sapp disputes the notion that she ever pointed a gun. She says that had she actually pointed a gun, she would be dead because more than one of the cops would’ve fired their guns.

“If I had been pointing my gun, the way they said that I was, why didn’t they all shoot me, instead of just one person?” Sapp asked. Indeed, as TFTP has reported on a regular basis, cops are more than willing to shoot someone for merely reaching for areas where there may be a gun. If you actually point a gun at a cop, especially four of them, rest assured, you are going to be filled with holes immediately.

Instead of shooting her, one cop deployed his taser. Marcum, apparently scared of his own shadow then did what the other officers in the room never felt necessary: he pulled out his gun and put a bullet into Sapp.

This innocent woman, who had harmed no one, was asleep in her own bedroom, and did nothing wrong, was then shot in the shoulder and arrested.

“It doesn’t make any sense that they would come in that way unless they were lied to by somebody that was using this well-being check as a tool to put me in harm’s way,” Sapp said. “To process that has been really, really difficult. It’s something that could happen to anyone.”

Despite the fact that not a single cop was injured, and the fact that Sapp never fired of a round, and the fact that she was the one who was shot, this woman was arrested and charged with the following felonies:

Att. First Degree Murder Of Leo W/firearm
Att. First Degree Murder Of Leo W/firearm
Agg. Assault On A Leo (w/ A Deadly Weapon)
Aggravated Assault With A Deadly Weapon
Aggravated Assault With A Deadly Weapon
Aggravated Assault With A Deadly Weapon
Resisting Officer With Violence

Sapp, whose trial begins this month, now faces the possibility of life behind bars for attempting to defend herself against multiple armed home invaders who happened to wear badges. All of this, of course, was carried out for her own safety.

Free Thought Project

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Deckard (#0)

“I didn’t have my glasses on, I’m legally blind,”

A lot of that going around.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-12   9:29:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Deckard (#0)

Hmmm. No charges against the ex-boyfriend?

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-12   9:31:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Deckard (#0)

Reckless endangerment / attempted murder on the part of the boyfriend, not only against the woman but the police as well.

Malicious prosecution on the part of the prosecutor given the police cannot certify they ID'd themselves as police after awakening the woman.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-12-12   10:05:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Pinguinite (#3)

given the police cannot certify they ID'd themselves as police after awakening the woman.

The police uniforms offered no clue?

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-12   11:14:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: misterwhite (#4)

The police uniforms offered no clue?

I would not expect you to be aware of this, but when someone is awakened from sleep by intruders in his/her home shining flashlights in the face in a room that is otherwise dark, taking note of the apparrel of the intruders, assuming it can be seen at all, is not the strongest informational element to register in the brain of the just awakened person, particularly if that person is legally blind. That no doubt involved difficult concepts to grasp, but if you spend some time mulling over it and discussing it with friends, your father and your pastor, you should eventually understand the reasoning.

It is possible that these police wear glow-in-the-dark uniforms, in which case, I'll stand corrected.

I suggest you try this on yourself by having a friend make a similar call on your home at a random time sometime within the next 3 months. Be sure also to have a stalker put you in serious fear for your life beforehand and have 2 pistols -- apparently sufficient to start a revolution -- on hand. Let us know how you do.

Seems to me this prosecution may be intended to preempt a civil lawsuit from this woman. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this case is dropped just before trial, when they realize she will not take a plea.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-12-12   12:27:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Pinguinite (#5)

Seems to me this prosecution may be intended to preempt a civil lawsuit from this woman. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this case is dropped just before trial, when they realize she will not take a plea.

I thought the same thing. A strategic lawsuit against asserting her rights. Like a SLAPP lawsuit but intended to shield police from unlawful conduct and false arrest.

It happens more often than people realize.

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-12-12   14:14:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: misterwhite (#1)

A lot of that going around.

https://www.orangepublicrecords.com/sample.php?id=1628

https://www.clickorlando.com/news/2017/09/18/winter-park-police-officer-shoots-armed-woman-threatening-suicide-police-say/

The incident happened in 2017.

https://www.bailbondsearch.com/orange-inmate-SAPP/17026724

Booking Number: 17026724

Criminal Charges
Case Sequence: 245
Case Status: Presentenced
#Bond Amount: 0.00
Police Case Number: n/a
Court Location: CIRCUIT
Arresting Agency: Winter Park Pd
Charge/Court Case Number: Att. First Degree Murder Of Leo W/firearm
2017CF012052AO

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Case Sequence: 246
Case Status: Presentenced
#Bond Amount: 0.00
Police Case Number: n/a
Arresting Agency: Winter Park Pd
Charge/Court Case Number: Att. First Degree Murder Of Leo W/firearm
2017CF012052AO
Court Location: CIRCUIT
Note: Icjis Affidavit, Original Charge(s): // 782.04(1)(a)(1)-2 Attempted First
Degree Murder Of A Law E

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Case Sequence: 247
Case Status: Presentenced
#Bond Amount: 0.00
Police Case Number: n/a
Arresting Agency: Winter Park Pd
Charge/Court Case Number: Agg. Assault On A Leo (w/ A Deadly Weapon) 2017CF012052AO
Court Location: CIRCUIT
Note: Icjis Affidavit, Original Charge(s): // 782.04(1)(a)(1)-2 Attempted First
Degree Murder Of A Law E

https://www.clickorlando.com/news/2017/09/27/bond-denied-for-woman-accused-of-pointing-gun-at-winter-park-police/

Bond denied for woman accused of pointing gun at Winter Park police

Bobbie Sapp to remain jailed

WINTER PARK, Fla. – A judge on Wednesday denied a motion to reduce bond for a woman accused of threatening Winter Park police.

Investigators said Bobbie Sapp pointed a gun at police earlier this month when they went to talk to her at a home on Buckingham Road.

Police officers said they shot Sapp after they felt threatened.

Sapp's lawyers argued that since she doesn't have any convictions on her record and needs physical therapy for her injuries, she should be granted bond. A judge, however, refused to grant the motion.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-12   14:23:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Pinguinite (#5)

Agree with your opinion on this !!!

Some may think all cops are god, and unable to do wrong. But anyone with a min of two brain cells know better !!!

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." (Will Rogers)

"No one ever rescues an old dog. They lay in a cage until they die. PLEASE save one. None of us wants to die cold and alone... --Dennis Olson "

People that say money can't buy you happiness, have never paid an adoption fee

Stoner  posted on  2019-12-12   15:01:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Deckard (#0)

I fail to see what possibly could be gained by the police making a wellness check in the dark. A phone call, a knock on the door after say 8 AM? Or putting a cruiser in the driveway blocking any exit by vehicle until the lady comes out, or begins her day. There is no right in the police action on this night, and a whole lot of wrong.

THIS IS A TAG LINE...Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.

jeremiad  posted on  2019-12-12   15:29:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: jeremiad (#9)

I fail to see what possibly could be gained by the police making a wellness check in the dark. A phone call, a knock on the door after say 8 AM?

You'd be screaming your head off if she died during the night and the cops didn't show up until 8 AM. God save us from Monday morning quarterbacks like you who are oh so smart after the fact.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-12   17:56:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: jeremiad, misterwhite (#9)

I fail to see what possibly could be gained by the police making a wellness check in the dark. A phone call, a knock on the door after say 8 AM?

The report was that the woman was armed and had been threatening to commit suicide by cop.

A PHONE CALL... Are you armed and threatening to commit suicide by cop? Can we come over to talk about it?

A KNOCK ON THE DOOR AFTER 8 a.m. ... She answers blam! blam!! Oh, the report was serious?

The cops have the advantage making silent entry in the dark and approaching the subject sleeping in her bed. This is especially true if they deploy night vision equipment.

https://www.clickorlando.com/news/2017/09/18/winter-park-police-officer-shoots-armed-woman-threatening-suicide-police-say/

Winter Park police officer shoots armed woman threatening suicide, police say

Woman's injuries non-life-threatening, could face charges

WINTER PARK, Fla. – A Winter Park police officer shot a woman Sunday morning after she pointed a gun at the officer, officials said.

The shooting happened after police responded at 8:27 a.m. to a well-being check on Bobbie Sapp, 46, who had been threatening to commit suicide by cop at 1313 Buckingham Road, according to the Winter Park Police Department.

Officers were told that the woman had multiple firearms inside her home.

Winter Park police Sgt. Garvin McComey said officers tried to talk with the woman, who started pointing a gun at one officer. Officers tried to subdue the woman with a Taser, but she continued to point the weapon, police said.

The officer shot her in the right shoulder after she did not respond to several commands to put the gun down, he said.

The woman was taken to an area hospital with non-life-threatening injuries, McComey said.

[...]

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-12   18:35:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: misterwhite (#10)

I couldn't care less if she killed herself. If it were my sister or a family member, I would have checked myself.....AT A DECENT HOUR..... Death comes for all of us, it doesn't freak me out if idiots kill themselves. When they rob others of life and health, THAT tees me off.

THIS IS A TAG LINE...Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.

jeremiad  posted on  2019-12-12   20:49:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: nolu chan (#11) (Edited)

How can she commit suicide by cop if the cops don't show up to a dark and sleeping house and barge in?

THIS IS A TAG LINE...Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.

jeremiad  posted on  2019-12-12   20:50:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: nolu chan (#11)

silent entry in the dark?

deploy night vision equipment?

When police arrived on scene, Sapp’s ex showed them how to break into the home and they followed his directions.

watchman  posted on  2019-12-12   22:04:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: jeremiad (#13)

How can she commit suicide by cop if the cops don't show up to a dark and sleeping house and barge in?

She can just commit suicide and if the cops did not timely react to the report, litigation would follow.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-12   22:30:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: watchman, Jeremiad, misterwhite (#14)

[Matt Agorist] On the night in question, Sapp had done nothing wrong, had committed no crime, and harmed no one—yet police broke into her home, raided her bedroom as she slept, and shot her. Then, they had the audacity to arrest her and charge her with multiple felonies.

[Jeremiad #13] How can she commit suicide by cop if the cops don't show up to a dark and sleeping house and barge in?

[Watchman #14] silent entry in the dark? deploy night vision equipment When police arrived on scene, Sapp’s ex showed them how to break into the home and they followed his directions.

Hey check this out. The call to police was at 8 a.m.

Per the boyfriend's instructions, they opened the kitchen window and unlocked the back door with a clothes hanger.

https://www.clickorlando.com/news/2019/10/28/winter-park-police-shoot-woman-during-well-being-check/

Winter Park police shoot woman during well-being check

Woman faces criminal charges

[excerpt]

It happened 8 a.m. on a Sunday in September 2017. While Sapp was fast asleep in the Winter Park home she rented, her ex-boyfriend was calling Winter Park police.

"My girlfriend was threatening suicide last night, I just came to the house and trying to get in," Sapp's ex-boyfriend told the 911 operator.

It was a five minute, 34 second call that Sapp said changed her life.

"She is very well armed," Sapp's ex-boyfriend told the 911 operator when asked if Sapp had a gun.

"She's threatened suicide by cop before," he said.

"I was asleep in my bed. I was not at all contemplating a suicide or suicide by cop," Sapp told News 6.

When police arrived, Sapp's ex showed them how to enter the house, according to an interview with officer Jeff Marcum obtained by News 6.

"There’s one way into the house to crawl through a window and I don't want to do that at this point. I want someone here with me," Sapp's ex-boyfriend said during the call.

One officer lifted a kitchen window, leaned in and used a clothing hanger to unlock the back door, according to police.

Meanwhile, Marcum was still getting information from Sapp's ex.

"I'm asking if there's any weapons in the house, he tells me there's enough weapons in the house to start a revolution," Marcum said.

Then the three officers made their way into the house, through the living room, and finally to Sapp's bedroom where they see her sleeping.

"I'm thinking about the call suicide by cop," Marcum says during the interview.

Marcum, a 23-year-veteran with the Winter Park Police Department, describes in an interview with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement what happened next.

"We're yelling at her to, you know, let us see your hands, let us see your hands," Marcum said.

"I didn't have my glasses on, I'm legally blind," Sapp said. "I couldn't identify anybody, but I remember there being shadows figures standing in my room. They pulled the covers off me."

"At that point when she pulled the cover, Ms. Sapp immediately came up with a handgun and pointed it right at us," Marcum told investigators.

Sapp admits she slept with two guns. She and her ex had been in a fight the night before and she feared it was him coming back to the house, she said.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-12   22:47:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: nolu chan (#16)

Hey check this out. The call to police was at 8 a.m.

Yeah, I know it was 8 a.m.

How did YOU arrive at "night vision equipment"?

The cops have the advantage making silent entry in the dark and approaching the subject sleeping in her bed. This is especially true if they deploy night vision equipment.

I mean, aside from the body cam "found footage" I presented lol

watchman  posted on  2019-12-12   23:18:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: watchman (#17)

Yeah, I know it was 8 a.m.

How did YOU arrive at "night vision equipment"?

Silly me, I read the Matt Agorist thread article and did not fact check his "reporting" that it was night. I know better than to believe a word written by that source, but don't have the time to check his each and every statement.

[Matt Agorist/Thread Article] On the night in question, Sapp had done nothing wrong, had committed no crime, and harmed no one—yet police broke into her home, raided her bedroom as she slept, and shot her.

[Jeremiad #9]

#9. To: Deckard (#0)

I fail to see what possibly could be gained by the police making a wellness check in the dark. A phone call, a knock on the door after say 8 AM?

[...]

If, when responding to the thread article, you knew it was 8 AM, why did you talk about the police making a wellness check in the dark?

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-13   0:27:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: jeremiad (#12)

I would have checked myself.....AT A DECENT HOUR.....

It happened at 8am.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-13   9:16:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: nolu chan (#18)

A PHONE CALL... Are you armed and threatening to commit suicide by cop? Can we come over to talk about it?

A KNOCK ON THE DOOR AFTER 8 a.m. ... She answers blam! blam!! Oh, the report was serious?

The cops have the advantage making silent entry in the dark and approaching the subject sleeping in her bed. This is especially true if they deploy night vision equipment.

Okay, we've established that it is 8 am.

The real question is...how did you go from a phone call being a bad idea...and a knock on the door being a bad idea...to the rather bizarre idea of having them go in like Seal Team 6?

watchman  posted on  2019-12-13   9:17:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: watchman (#20)

Okay, we've established that it is 8 am.

And we have established that your conflicting claims said you knew it was 8 a.m. and then went on the say it was dark.

The real question is...how did you go from a phone call being a bad idea...and a knock on the door being a bad idea...to the rather bizarre idea of having them go in like Seal Team 6?

They went in prepared to meet an armed person who reportedly threatened to commit suicide by cop. You may approach that by giving advance notice that you are coming, and arrive with a sympathy blanket to put around her. Or you may delay, as you suggested, inviting a negligence lawsuit.

Blindness was not the best defence for pointing a gun at the police. She should have gone with being suicidal.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-13   10:08:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: nolu chan (#21)

The real question is...how did you go from a phone call being a bad idea...and a knock on the door being a bad idea...to the rather bizarre idea of having them go in like Seal Team 6?

They went in prepared to meet an armed person who reportedly threatened to commit suicide by cop.

...reportedly

Is that your vision for America?

Any joker can make a 911 call, stand outside of any house, and direct military police into the house while the occupants sleep?

You're gonna fit right in to the Pope's New World Order.

watchman  posted on  2019-12-13   11:12:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: watchman (#22)

Is that your vision for America?

Any joker can make a 911 call, stand outside of any house, and direct military police into the house while the occupants sleep?

Of course, police respond to the report they receive and not to the Monday morning quarterbacking of some lying gobshite on a website.

Or as Matt Agorist would put it, they put her in jail with no bond for no reason at all.

You're gonna fit right in to the Pope's New World Order.

Of course, there is no indication that the Pope in particular, or Catholics in general, (or Jews, Muslims, ordinary Protestants or Fundies) had diddly squat to do with this case. That is just like the rest of your nutty drivel. Go write a wacko book about the Revelation.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-13   11:55:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: nolu chan (#23)

Go write a wacko book about the Revelation.

You may not believe what is written in Revelation...but the Pope does...and so do the rest of the elites who use it as their play book.

And right now those folks outrank you and are working tirelessly to bring about their NWO/OWG.

Your vision of militarized police in night vision goggles entering in on sleeping citizens plays right in to their whole plan.

watchman  posted on  2019-12-13   12:19:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: watchman (#24)

You may not believe what is written in Revelation...but the Pope does...and so do the rest of the elites who use it as their play book.

And right now those folks outrank you and are working tirelessly to bring about their NWO/OWG.

I do not believe what is in books about the Revelation when they are written by internet wackos, such as multi-handled nutbags.

And right now those folks outrank you and are working tirelessly to bring about their NWO/OWG.

I have all those Papists who outrank me fooled. I have a plot waiting for me in a Baptist cemetery, where my mother and brother await my arrival.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-13   12:39:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: nolu chan (#25)

I do not believe what is in books about the Revelation when they are written by internet wackos, such as multi-handled nutbags.

How about recognized Bible scholars who write about Revelation? And who are these "multi-handled nutbags" you refer to?

I have a plot waiting for me in a Baptist cemetery, where my mother and brother await my arrival.

You are a Baptist now? I'd believe that your mother and brother are Christians before I'd believe you are.

watchman  posted on  2019-12-13   12:53:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: watchman (#26)

And who are these "multi-handled nutbags" you refer to?

I reject watchmen, editors or interpreters who say stuff like, "My predictions, on the other hand have never even once failed to come to pass. I refute all futurists everywhere that ever appeared on this great Earth of ours, bar none. " Or, "After the Earth is destroyed by fire 1000 years from now (in a great war), those found worthy get to go to Mars and live in the New Jerusalem."

They are as reliable as an FBI midyear review. To use a Brit expression, it's all just a bunch of old Barry. It's like the stuff that issues forth from Matagorda, which looks like Spanish for kill the fat lady.

I'd believe that your mother and brother are Christians before I'd believe you are.

I'd believe you are a warped futurist fundie before I'd believe you are sane.

Just a reminder:

Title: Cops Break Into Innocent Sleeping Woman’s Home, Shoot Her—Now She Faces Life in Prison

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-13   15:27:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Deckard (#0)

The state's case against this woman hinges around her pointing a gun at cops, but I'm hard pressed to understand how it could possibly be a crime for a woman to react with hostility after being awakened in her own bedroom by 3 strange men. If I was on the jury, the state would have the overwhelming burden to show that this woman acted with malice by drawing a firearm when she would already have enormous latitude to do so simply out of a right to self defense.

Even if the police claim that she drew a weapon on them is true, even if she had fired a shot, even if she had killed one or more police, I would grant her the "I was in fear for my life" defense and vote to acquit. We all know if she was holding a cell phone and police shot and killed her, that would be the police defense.

I'm really sick of how prosecutors and courts hold citizens to higher police standards in shooting situations than they hold trained police.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-12-14   1:37:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Pinguinite (#28)

YUP, met too. She could kill all the cops as far as I am concerned. THEY were breaking the law of man and natures law. If 4 men go into a bears cave to capture the bear and they end up mauled, people say one word.....GOOD. Into a persons den while they sleep, and they want to throw her in prison for defending herself.

THIS IS A TAG LINE...Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.

jeremiad  posted on  2019-12-15   0:34:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: jeremiad (#29)

If this woman was a cop and upon waking, drew her firearm and pointed it at the guys in her bedroom, they'd have never thought it any problem. It would just be instinctive training kicking in. But no, she's not a cop so HER drawing her gun on them is a crime.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-12-15   4:09:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Pinguinite (#28)

You are going to get voted out of the nuthouse. Thanks for building it.

Anthem  posted on  2019-12-15   8:10:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: Pinguinite, misterwhite (#5)

That no doubt involved difficult concepts to grasp, but if you spend some time mulling over it and discussing it with friends, your father and your pastor, you should eventually understand the reasoning.

I think Mr White should rather speak with his psychiatrist.

A Pole  posted on  2019-12-15   13:39:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Pinguinite (#5)

I would not expect you to be aware of this, but when someone is awakened from sleep by intruders in his/her home shining flashlights in the face in a room that is otherwise dark,

Sunrise in Winter Park, Florida in September, 2017 was 7:10 am. The police entered at 8:00.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-16   9:19:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: misterwhite (#33)

The incident didn't happen outside. Because it is light outside doesn't say how much light was on the inside.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-12-16   9:56:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: A K A Stone (#34)

She had blackout curtains or are you just making shit up?

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-16   10:52:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: misterwhite (#35)

She had blackout curtains or are you just making shit up?

I am not making anything up. You are claiming to know how much light was in the room based on the time of day. I'm just pointing out that curtains and say being on the west side may be a factor in how well how much light there was.

I'm not saying she had black out curtains. I just posted that in case you didn't know that curtains black out or just regular ones can dim the light. As I pointed out especially if her room is on the west side.

Or maybe she is lying. I don't know.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-12-16   10:58:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite (#36)

Bobbie Sapp, 49, is a registered nurse

Being an RN she probably works both day and night shifts. Her sleeping area would be fitted with curtains that make the room dark as needed.

watchman  posted on  2019-12-16   11:41:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: A K A Stone (#36)

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't even matter how well lit the room might have been. When anyone wakes up in their bedroom and finds 3 strange men standing there, there's going to be panic, and this is all the more true when it's a woman that discovers this. And the reaction of any person, especially a woman, is going to be an activation of self-defense instinct, and in this case that means this woman drawing her weapon. This prosecution is about her failing to quash that natural instinctive self-preservation reaction because she was expected to surmise instantly upon waking that these three strange men were wearing police uniforms AND that somehow should have made everything instantly understandable to her in her freshly awakened state of mind.

It's insane. Now she insists she did not draw a weapon on them by virtue of the fact that she was still alive and only one cop fired one round. I think that's a credible argument but even if she did draw, I consider it a reasonable "I was in fear for my life" defense and I'd find her not guilty on that basis. Even if she had drawn and fired, and even if she had drawn, fired and killed.

She did NOT ask for this to happen to her. Whatever procedures these cops follow in these cases, they need to be revised, and the current defective procedures they follow now are not the responsibility of this woman or any other resident.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-12-16   11:58:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: A K A Stone (#36)

As I pointed out especially if her room is on the west side.

Or maybe she lived in the basement. Right?

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-16   12:27:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: misterwhite (#39)

Or maybe she lived in the basement. Right?

No I don't think she lived or was in the basement. What leads you to belive that?

What leads you to determine her curtains were open?

Ever been to a hotel and you wake up and it's later than you think because the curtains were drawn?

I'm just pointing out you are making assumptions. You do that all the time.

Like I said maybe she is lying. Maybe she is telling the truth and the police are lying. I don't know or pretend to know. You pretend to know.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-12-16   12:42:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite (#34)

The incident didn't happen outside. Because it is light outside doesn't say how much light was on the inside.

Officers responded at 8:27 a.m. Sapp did not say it was dark. Agorist wrote, "On the night in question...." It was the day in question, and the light in the room is not clearly established.

The information in the article relates that it was light enough for a legally blind person to make out shadowy figures standing in the room.

“I didn’t have my glasses on, I’m legally blind,” Sapp said. “I couldn’t identify anybody, but I remember there being shadows figures standing in my room. They pulled the covers off me.”

“At that point when she pulled the cover, Ms. Sapp immediately came up with a handgun and pointed it right at us,” Marcum told investigators.

- - - - - - - - - -

Sapp disputes the notion that she ever pointed a gun. She says that had she actually pointed a gun, she would be dead because more than one of the cops would’ve fired their guns.

One shot to the right shoulder and she was not pointing a gun.

She is allegedly legally blind. She was allegedly brandishing a gun and could not see what she was aiming it at. That can get a legally blind person in trouble should he or she go into the woods unaccompanied to hunt. In general, blind people are required to be accompanied; to have a non-hunting partner as a seeing guide.

Blind people may be licensed to own guns, but they are not relieved of the responsibility of knowing what they are aiming at. She was aiming at cops in uniform, with badges, perhaps unaware of their being cops due her poor vision. Her poor vision would be an explanation, perhaps a mitigating factor, but not an excuse.

A jury can decide whether she was justified in aiming a gun in self-defense, where her poor vision prevented her from knowing what she was aiming at.

Another question would be, if she were justified in aiming her gun at unidentified shadows in her room, were the shadowy cops justified in shooting her in the shoulder? A finding that she was justified would not establish that the cops were not justified.

Another factor to consider is that the officers were almost certainly shouting some form of command, and there is no evidence that Sapp is deaf.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-16   18:07:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: A K A Stone (#40) (Edited)

" Cops Break Into Innocent Sleeping Woman’s Home, Shoot Her—Now She Faces Life in Prison "

Stone, I guess to some, that makes perfect sense.

I am of the opinion that it is evil, very immoral, and total bullshit !!!

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." (Will Rogers)

"No one ever rescues an old dog. They lay in a cage until they die. PLEASE save one. None of us wants to die cold and alone... --Dennis Olson "

People that say money can't buy you happiness, have never paid an adoption fee

Stoner  posted on  2019-12-16   20:08:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: nolu chan (#41)

Legally blind … with a gun. What could possibly go wrong?

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-17   9:49:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: misterwhite (#43)

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-12-17   9:56:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: A K A Stone (#44)

So you're saying she had someone in bed with her to help her point the gun?

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-17   11:32:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: nolu chan (#41)

Blind people may be licensed to own guns, but they are not relieved of the responsibility of knowing what they are aiming at. She was aiming at cops in uniform, with badges, perhaps unaware of their being cops due her poor vision. Her poor vision would be an explanation, perhaps a mitigating factor, but not an excuse.

Cops are routinely excused from shooting civilians that posed no threat at all based purely on their perception of danger. To be consistent in applying laws equally to all, civilians must be afforded the same legal consideration. There is little question that this woman had a legitimate "fear for my life" defense when she was awakened by 3 men in her bedroom.

Another question would be, if she were justified in aiming her gun at unidentified shadows in her room, were the shadowy cops justified in shooting her in the shoulder? A finding that she was justified would not establish that the cops were not justified.

That's not a question in this case as the cops are not on trial. But certainly standing precedent will state that the police shooting her was justified. If she is found not guilty of any crime related to the shooting, this question may come up in a civil court context should she decide to sue the police.

A shooting takes place where no threat existed does not necessarily require that a finding of criminal guilt occurred on the party that fired the shot, even if it results in injury or death. This is most often the case when cops shoot civilians but has occurred in extremely rare cases, at least one where a civilian shot and killed a cop during a home raid. It was deemed justified as the homeowner had no reasonable basis for knowing that police were invading his home.

Being awakened from sleep in one's own home by police would seem to be a qualifying case of this woman having no reasonable basis for knowing police were present.

Another factor to consider is that the officers were almost certainly shouting some form of command, and there is no evidence that Sapp is deaf.

Shouting commands wouldn't necessarily include identifying themselves, and again, doing so to a person who is in the process of awakening and who is legally blind creates an extremely dubious certainty in the person who was just awakened, particularly when that person is a woman living alone, awakened by 3 men whom she she does not know and who entered her home uninvited and without her knowledge.

By any fair standard, she had a legitimate "fear for my life" defense that is routinely afforded police. Failing to afford that standard in this case is a clear violation of failure to apply that law equally to all persons.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-12-17   11:34:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#45)

So you're saying she had someone in bed with her to help her point the gun?

You may also consider the hunting example consideration that she needs a seeing guide not only to see her target, but to see further in the distance, behind her target, to shoot safely and not hit an unintended person. What will the bullet hit if it just misses, or cleanly passes through the intended target?

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-17   17:37:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: Pinguinite (#46)

Cops are routinely excused from shooting civilians that posed no threat at all....

Are you seriously arguing that Bobbie Sapp aiming a firearm at the police “posed no threat at all”?

There is little question that this woman had a legitimate "fear for my life" defense when she was awakened by 3 men in her bedroom.

Then she can plead self-defense. A problem may be that she failed to respond to verbal commands.

Another question would be, if she were justified in aiming her gun at unidentified shadows in her room, were the shadowy cops justified in shooting her in the shoulder? A finding that she was justified would not establish that the cops were not justified.

That's not a question in this case as the cops are not on trial. But certainly standing precedent will state that the police shooting her was justified. If she is found not guilty of any crime related to the shooting, this question may come up in a civil court context should she decide to sue the police.

It is a question of whether or not charges are filed against the police. The police had a gun aimed at them. One of them shot the subject in the shoulder and removed the threat. The responding officers are not responsible for the content of the report to which they responded. If the caller reported false information, he could be liable for a felony. Had she died, he could have been liable for felony murder.

She cannot sue the police, or the police department. She can try to sue Winter Haven, or her ex who called in the report, and showed the cops how to effect entry.

Being awakened from sleep in one's own home by police would seem to be a qualifying case of this woman having no reasonable basis for knowing police were present.

Up to the point where they scream their commands and make it known that they are cops.

Shouting commands wouldn't necessarily include identifying themselves....

https://www.clickorlando.com/news/2017/09/18/winter-park-police-officer-shoots-armed-woman-threatening-suicide-police-say/

Winter Park police Sgt. Garvin McComey said officers tried to talk with the woman, who started pointing a gun at one officer. Officers tried to subdue the woman with a Taser, but she continued to point the weapon, police said.

The officer shot her in the right shoulder after she did not respond to several commands to put the gun down, he said.

- - - - - - - - - -

A shooting takes place where no threat existed....

The cops reported to a scene of a subject who allegedly threatened suicide by cop.

The subject pulled a gun and aimed it at the cops.

You hypothetical has no basis.

By any fair standard, she had a legitimate "fear for my life" defense....

A court can decide that. Self-defense is an available defense, not a get out of jail free card. She must justify aiming a gun at uniformed cops whom she was unable to identify due to her impaired vision. She must justify not putting on her glasses in order to identify her targets before aiming a gun at them.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-17   18:47:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: nolu chan (#48)

Cops are routinely excused from shooting civilians that posed no threat at all....

Are you seriously arguing that Bobbie Sapp aiming a firearm at the police “posed no threat at all”?

You have clearly, knowingly and intentionally taken my comment out of context.

There is little question that this woman had a legitimate "fear for my life" defense when she was awakened by 3 men in her bedroom.

Then she can plead self-defense. A problem may be that she failed to respond to verbal commands.

Her first defense is that she never aimed a gun at them at all. The claim by police that she did is in dispute. But assuming she did, I believe she does have a legitimate self defense claim.

Being awakened from sleep in one's own home by police would seem to be a qualifying case of this woman having no reasonable basis for knowing police were present.

Up to the point where they scream their commands and make it known that they are cops.

So she is obligated to accept the word of strange men in her bedroom that they are cops. Men she cannot she clearly? This is not about who they were, but whether her armed reaction, if it was indeed an armed reaction, was reasonable given her state of mind being freshly awakened and what facts she could be certain of in this state of mind, facts that go beyond who these men were claiming to be.

By any fair standard, she had a legitimate "fear for my life" defense....

A court can decide that. Self-defense is an available defense, not a get out of jail free card. She must justify aiming a gun at uniformed cops whom she was unable to identify due to her impaired vision. She must justify not putting on her glasses in order to identify her targets before aiming a gun at them.

As though in an in-home invasion in her bedroom by those with criminal intent, she is legally obligated to put on her glasses before taking defensive measures *just in case* the men in her bedroom are cops...

That's far too late.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-12-17   19:08:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: Pinguinite (#49)

Cops are routinely excused from shooting civilians that posed no threat at all....

Are you seriously arguing that Bobbie Sapp aiming a firearm at the police “posed no threat at all”?

You have clearly, knowingly and intentionally taken my comment out of context.

No, you started your comments with inapplicable blather. I pointed out the inappropriateness of your deliberately skewed context. The instant case does not concern a case where the subject posed no threat at all.

Her first defense is that she never aimed a gun at them at all. The claim by police that she did is in dispute.

Three cops against one lady with two guns in her bed. The defense that the cops shot her for no reason at all will be as persuasive as the dindu defense.

But assuming she did, I believe she does have a legitimate self defense claim.

The judicial branch can sort that out with a full set of facts to judge on.

As though in an in-home invasion in her bedroom by those with criminal intent, she is legally obligated to put on her glasses before taking defensive measures *just in case* the men in her bedroom are cops...

She will be required to justify why she picked up a gun and aimed it at uniformed cops whom she could not identify as such because she is legally blind. Being blind and unable to see and identify one’s intended target does not make it lawful to aim a gun and what one cannot clearly see or identify.

I will wait for the trial and accept whatever they find.

As though in an in-home invasion in her bedroom by those with criminal intent....

Here you go again. That is pure, absolute bullshit. There is no evidence whatever that the responding officers invaded anything, nor that they had any criminal intent. To the contrary, there is evidence that they responded appropriately to the report that they were given.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-17   19:44:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: nolu chan (#50)

Are you seriously arguing that Bobbie Sapp aiming a firearm at the police “posed no threat at all”?

You have clearly, knowingly and intentionally taken my comment out of context.

No, you started your comments with inapplicable blather. I pointed out the inappropriateness of your deliberately skewed context. The instant case does not concern a case where the subject posed no threat at all.

Try reading my full statement. I was comparing the "fear for my life" defense routinely invoked by police for when they shoot people even when no threat exists, with this case where a woman is accused of acting proactively to defend her person. My point, which you are negligently refusing to acknowledge, is that this "fear for my life" defense is not one that can lawfully be available ONLY to police, and that this fear is already well established to mean what the person in fear was knowledgable of, which may differ from the actual facts at the time.

A cop shooting a man getting out of his car because he held his wallet with both hands was deemed justified because of the fear the cop felt regardless of the fact that there was zero danger. The facts on the scene don't matter. What is in the mind of the person with the gun does matter.

Now perhaps you yourself just got out of bed and were not fully cognizant of my entire comment: It follows:

Cops are routinely excused from shooting civilians that posed no threat at all based purely on their perception of danger. To be consistent in applying laws equally to all, civilians must be afforded the same legal consideration. There is little question that this woman had a legitimate "fear for my life" defense when she was awakened by 3 men in her bedroom.

....

She will be required to justify why she picked up a gun and aimed it at uniformed cops whom she could not identify as such because she is legally blind. Being blind and unable to see and identify one’s intended target does not make it lawful to aim a gun and what one cannot clearly see or identify.

Being in her own bedroom, in her own house, awakened by 3 male strangers that were uninvited sure sounds like a fully justified and legitimate "fear for my life" defense to me, and taking aim at them, as best she could until such time as she is satisfied that no danger exists, sure sounds like a legitimate defense to me.

As though in an in-home invasion in her bedroom by those with criminal intent....

Here you go again. That is pure, absolute bullshit. There is no evidence whatever that the responding officers invaded anything, nor that they had any criminal intent. To the contrary, there is evidence that they responded appropriately to the report that they were given.

You again miss my point, negligently or willingly. My point was: What if this woman WAS being invaded by someone with criminal intent, like her ex-boyfriend? Your stated position is that if instead of cops these 3 men were thugs there to rape and murder her, she would be legally prohibited from aiming her gun at them until after she puts her glasses on.

That is a death sentence.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-12-17   20:44:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: Pinguinite (#51)

Cops are routinely excused from shooting civilians that posed no threat at all based purely on their perception of danger.

Your false predicate is still false.

Let me help a brother out:

Cops are routinely excused from shooting civilians that posed no threat at all based purely on their reasonable perception of danger.

What if this woman WAS being invaded by someone with criminal intent, like her ex-boyfriend?

I could have been Attila the Hun, and two of his henchmen. You support the right of a blind woman to pick up a gun and aim it at an unidentified target because she cannot see well enough to identify cops in full uniform.

The right to defend oneself does not grant the right to break the law in so doing. Recall the Arkansas lady, barred from possessing a gun because of a prior, picking up a gun in justified self-defense. She was busted for unlawful possession of a firearm.

She is going to have to defend that she picked up a gun and aimed it at an unidentified person who was a cop in full uniform. If a fully sighted person couldn’t do it, what provision in law permits a blind person to do it?

When she aimed her gun at the cop, the cop was certainly justified in perceiving a deadly threat, and fully justified in shooting her.

She had no way of knowing if she faced a deadly threat or not. In picking up the gun, she faced a deadly threat of her own making. She could reasonably fear the unknown, but she is going to have to sell to a jury that she had a right to aim her gun at the unknown.

She can always hope for an anarcho-libertarian judge and jury.

That is a death sentence.

A blind woman challenging three armed cops to a gunfight is as close as she is going to get to a death sentence. Especially if she has been reported to have been threatening to commit suicide by cop.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-17   23:41:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: nolu chan (#52)

She had no way of knowing if she faced a deadly threat or not. In picking up the gun, she faced a deadly threat of her own making. She could reasonably fear the unknown, but she is going to have to sell to a jury that she had a right to aim her gun at the unknown.

If someone is in your house and they are not supposed to be there. You live alone like she apparetly did because her boyfriend wasn't with her anymore. That means anyone in her house would be there without her permission and she could legitimately think it is a threat and kill them in self defense.

The cops could think their life was in danger too. But they didn't get a search warrant. They were wrong coming in someones home without a warrant.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-12-18   0:09:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: nolu chan (#52)

I could have been Attila the Hun, and two of his henchmen. You support the right of a blind woman to pick up a gun and aim it at an unidentified target because she cannot see well enough to identify cops in full uniform.

Let me help you out by appending:

.... in her own home, in her bedroom. Yes, because she has a reasonable expectation of security within her own home. I suppose you don't believe people have any such reasonable expectation of security within their home. Fine.

She had no way of knowing if she faced a deadly threat or not.

The cop who shot a guy holding a wallet ALSO had no way of knowing whether he faced a deadly threat or not. Apparently his blindness to what that man was holding in full view in open daylight WAS deemed as acceptable ignorance to the fact that there was no danger.

In picking up the gun, she faced a deadly threat of her own making. She could reasonably fear the unknown, but she is going to have to sell to a jury that she had a right to aim her gun at the unknown.

She faced a deadly threat no less so than the cop who shot a guy with a wallet. In fact, more so given it happened in her own bedroom.

That is a death sentence.

A blind woman challenging three armed cops to a gunfight is as close as she is going to get to a death sentence. Especially if she has been reported to have been threatening to commit suicide by cop.

You refuse to read. You refuse to grant the same "fear for my life" standard to a blind woman in her own bedroom as you accept for a cop in open daylight on the street.

Admit you have a double standard and I'll consider the conversation closed.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-12-18   0:52:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: Pinguinite (#54)

standard to a blind woman

At about 1:37 in the video she shifts her eyes and doesn't appear blind.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-12-18   2:08:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: Pinguinite, nolu chan (#54)

People also ask What is the definition of legally blind? If you're completely blind, you can't see any light or form. ... If you're legally blind, your vision is 20/200 or less. That means if an object is 200 feet away, you have to stand 20 feet from it in order to see it clearly. But a person with normal vision can stand 200 feet away and see that object perfectly.Nov 15, 2017

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-12-18   2:10:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: A K A Stone (#56)

I expect the definition you cite is correct, but the important thing is that "legally blind" does not mean absolutely blind. 20/200 means that one can make out detail at 20 feet that a person with (what is considered) normal vision can make out at 200 feet. That does not mean, of course, that a person with 20/200 vision sees people 20 feet away as though they were 200 feet away. They could still make out shapes and be able to tell the approximate distance away they are, and such a person may very well be able to see and shoot effectively put a bullet into a perceived moving blob.

If this woman is not legally blind then I would expect the state to argue that with whatever evidence they possess. I am going on the presumption she is telling the truth and that the state will not contest the claim. The only fact I am aware of that is in dispute is whether she pointed a gun at the police. She claimed she did not, the cops claim she did. There are no body cams in this case.

Pinguinite  posted on  2019-12-18   2:44:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: Pinguinite (#57)

Are we loosing track of the fact that these guys invaded her house, with no probable cause, only a pretext provided by her ex-boyfriend? They shouldn't have been within the premises in the first place, and even if one is willing to grant them that power, they should have erred on the side of caution, especially finding her alive and obviously not a threat to herself or anyone else. Good Lord, they should have backed off immediately upon finding her asleep in her bed, and very gently called for her attention from a safe distance (outside her bedroom).

Anthem  posted on  2019-12-18   3:38:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: nolu chan (#52)

It looks like this is just a game to you. You've got nothing better to do with your life than to bait people into arguments that you have no intention of honestly engaging.

Anthem  posted on  2019-12-18   3:54:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: Anthem (#58)

I haven't forgot Last sentence post 53.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-12-18   8:42:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: Anthem (#58)

Good Lord, they should have backed off immediately upon finding her asleep in her bed, and very gently called for her attention from a safe distance (outside her bedroom).

Giving this "suicide-by-cop" crazed woman time to arm herself and start shooting?

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-18   9:34:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: nolu chan (#27)

I reject watchmen

But stalker ex-boyfriends who skulk around a former girlfriend's house seeking to get her harmed...you accept those.

watchman  posted on  2019-12-18   9:59:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: nolu chan (#47) (Edited)

What will the bullet hit if it just misses, or cleanly passes through the intended target?

Who cares? No one is supposed to be in her bedroom -- not family, friends, neighbors, police -- so it's a free-fire zone. This is what her bedroom looks like at night when she hears a noise:

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-18   12:41:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: A K A Stone (#53)

The cops could think their life was in danger too. But they didn't get a search warrant. They were wrong coming in someones home without a warrant.

They were not there to search for evidence of a crime.

https://www.copleyroth.com/criminal-defense/what-is-the-difference-between-an-investigatory-stop-and-a-welfare-check/

Welfare Check

A welfare check, also known as a wellness check, occurs when law enforcement officers respond to a request to check on the safety and well-being of a person. These situations typically arise when an individual is having a hard time getting ahold of a family member, friend, or neighbor and they believe something is wrong with the person. The most common type of welfare check is checking on an elderly person. However, welfare checks can be utilized for a wide variety of reasons, including but not limited to, potential suicide, drug overdose, and child endangerment.

In order to request a welfare check, an individual must first get in contact with law enforcement, whether that be through 911 or a non-emergency number. Prior to contacting law enforcement, an individual must be certain that the person they are concerned about is in danger. If the individual lives in the same area as the person they are concerned about, he or she may accompany authorities to that person’s residence. Additionally, no court order is required for police to conduct a welfare check. As long as the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that an inhabitant in a residence is endangered, they can legally enter the premises. Law enforcement is given this power under the Community Caretaking Doctrine, a judicially created exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-18   17:56:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: misterwhite (#63)

Who cares? No one is supposed to be in her bedroom -- not family, friends, neighbors, police -- so it's a free-fire zone.

Well, there’s that. And curiosly the name of the individual claimed to be the boyfriend or ex-boyfriend appears better protected than Eric Chiaramella.

Were the ex-boyfriend’s report to police have been false, he could have been criminally or civilly liable. Using the google, I have not found his name, or any mention of a criminal or civil case.

And there is the natural law right of legally blind people to aim guns at blobs. Denying this right to sighted people who can see what they aim their weapon at is clearly a violation of the Equal Protection clause. Everybody’s bedroom should be a free zone. /sarc (for the benefit of aging juveniles)

But then there is the Community Caretaking Doctrine under which police receiving a call for a welfare check, and having reasonable grounds to believe that an inhabitant in a residence is endangered, can legally enter the premises with not search warrant or court order required.

And the Bobbie Sapp hearing in Orange County Court scheduled for 13 January 2020 has been cancelled.

Orange County Court Hearing Calendar

Case number: 2017-CF-012052-A-O
Hearing date: 01/13/2020 9:00 AM
Time slot: Room 9-a On The 9th Floor
Location: State Of Florida - Vs - Sapp, Bobbie Fischer
Judge: Roche, Renee A
Status: Cancelled

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-18   18:08:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: Anthem, Pinguinite (#58)

Are we loosing track of the fact that these guys invaded her house, with no probable cause

But then there is the Community Caretaking Doctrine under which police receiving a call for a welfare check, and having reasonable grounds to believe that an inhabitant in a residence is endangered, can legally enter the premises with no search warrant or court order required.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-18   18:10:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: Anthem (#59)

It looks like this is just a game to you.

Oh heck, just leave, rehandle yet again and come back as juvenile dumbshit.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-18   18:12:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: watchman (#62)

But stalker ex-boyfriends who skulk around a former girlfriend's house seeking to get her harmed...you accept those.

I do not accept your geriatric juvenile brainfarts revising the law. Your predicate is bullshit.

There is the Community Caretaking Doctrine under which police receiving a call for a welfare check, and having reasonable grounds to believe that an inhabitant in a residence is endangered, can legally enter the premises with no search warrant or court order required.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-18   18:15:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: Pinguinite (#54)

Let me help you out by appending:

.... in her own home, in her bedroom. Yes, because she has a reasonable expectation of security within her own home. I suppose you don't believe people have any such reasonable expectation of security within their home. Fine.

You can’t help yourself, let alone me.

You still do not know what the hell you are talking about and you are just spewing juvenile bullshit that you should have outgrown by now. Let the Office of the State Attorney of Florida help yourself out.

http://www.sa15.state.fl.us/stateattorney/ResourceInformation/_content/LegalEagle2016/July2016.pdf

Legal Eagle

A Newsletter for the Criminal Justice Community

July 2016

Published by:
Office of the State Attorney
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
B. Krischer, Editor

[Extract]

Community Caretaking: The Fourth Amendment provides, in relevant part, “the right of the people to be secure in their . . . houses . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.” “At the Amendment’s ‘very core’ stands ‘the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable government intru­sion.’” Florida v. Jardines, (2013).

While it is a basic principle of the Fourth Amendment that warrantless searches and seizures inside a home are presumptively unreasonable, the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is “reasonableness,” and it follows that the warrant require­ment is subject to certain exceptions. One such exception applies when police officers engage in community caretaking function. Cady v. Dom­browski, (S.Ct. 1973). The Supreme Court has long described the “community caretaking functions” of law enforcement as activities that are ‘"totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evi­dence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.” Community care­taking functions are performed by law enforcement to “help those in danger.” “A police officer may enter a residence without a warrant as a community caretaker where the of­ficer has a reasonable belief that an emergency exists requiring his or her attention.” The “reasonable belief” required under the community care­taker doctrine “is a less exacting standard than probable cause.”

A search or seizure under the com­munity caretaking function is reason­able if the governmental interest in law enforcement’s exercise of that function, based on specific and artic­ulable facts, outweighs the individu­al’s interest in freedom from govern­ment intrusion. “Our decisions there­fore confirm that authorities may enter a private dwelling based on a reasonable fear of a medical emer­gency. In those limited circumstanc­es, the sanctity of human life be­comes more important than the sanc­tity of the home.” Eastes v. State, (5DCA 2007).

Court's Ruling:

The Court of Appeals, after listing the factors known to the officers, easily found their entry into defend­ant’s home without a warrant lawful.

“The specific, articulable facts known to the officers at the time they entered the residence include the following facts, based on [Reporter’s] calls and information from dispatch. Wallace left the half­way house and had not returned by 5:00 p.m., the time she indicated she would return. [Reporter] stated dur­ing her first call to 911 that Smith may be holding Wallace at his home against her will. [Reporter] also pro­vided background information on Smith and Wallace’s previous dating relationship, including the existence of a no-contact order between them. The officers further learned from dispatch that other officers were una­ble to locate Wallace at a number of other locations. ... [Reporter] report that she was ‘sure’ Smith was armed. ... Further, only Smith responded to the officer’s initial knock on the door. Wallace had not responded to any phone calls or text messages since she left the half-way house, which was over three hours prior to the time the officers entered Smith’s residence. Finally, [Officer] noticed a person’s face at the back window of Smith’s home after Smith told officers Wallace was not at his home.”

“We are satisfied that the officers acted in their community caretaking function when they entered Smith’s residence. The circumstances resem­ble those in Harris and Quezada, in which officers responded to potential emergency situations to aid members of the community. See United States v. Harris, (8th Cir.2014) (holding that community caretaker doctrine ap­plied when officers responded to a call that a gun was sliding out of the pocket of a sleeping individual at a bus station); United States v. Queza­da, (8th Cir.2006) (holding that com­munity caretaker doctrine applied when officer encountered an emer­gency situation while serving a child protection order). The officers in the present case received a call from a concerned member of the community regarding the safety of another com­munity member. On the scene, the officers learned further details indi­cating serious concern for Wallace’s safety and establishing multiple rea­sons why she would be at Smith’s residence and held against her will or in danger.”

“We must next weigh the govern­ment’s interests in the officers’ entry against Smith’s right to be free from government intrusion. Smith con­tends that following his arrest, any emergency situation that the police officers may have believed existed inside the residence was extin­guished... Here, the officers did not enter Smith’s residence as a protec­tive sweep. As far as the officers reasonably knew at the time, Wallace could have been incapacitated within the residence in any number of ways that would prevent her from emerg­ing from the residence following Smith’s arrest. Wallace’s lack of response to any calls or messages on her cell phone since leaving the half­way house further suggested that she was unable to respond. The fact that officers saw a face in the window undermined Smith’s claim that he was the only person in the home at the time and a reasonable officer on the scene could believe the person seen in the window required their assistance. The justification for the officers’ entry arises from their obli­gation to help those in danger and ensure the safety of the public. ...We agree and conclude that the officers reasonably believed an emergency situation existed that required their immediate attention in the form of entering Smith’s residence to search for Wallace.”

“Further, we conclude the scope of the encounter was carefully tailored to satisfy the purpose. The officers entered Smith’s residence for the purpose of locating Wallace. They first announced their presence at the entrance of the home but received no response. Within thirty seconds, Wallace called out and indicated she was ‘in the bedroom.’ The officers went to the bedroom and began speaking with Wallace there. Smith does not argue the officers ventured beyond the bedroom once inside his home. The firearm at issue in this case was lying on the bed in the bed­room where Wallace was located. It was only partially covered by a bed sheet. The plain view doctrine there­fore applies. ...Because the officers had a lawful basis for entering Smith’s apartment under their func­tion as community caretakers, the firearm lying on the bed in the room in which Wallace was found is ad­missible under the plain view doc­trine.

AFFIRMED.”

Lessons Learned:

Community Caretaking is a powerful exception to the warrant requirement, but its application will be dependent on how the offense report is worded. Keep in mind that the basis for this warrant exception is that the police action is "totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisi­tion of evidence relating to the viola­tion of a criminal statute." If applica­ble the report should be worded ac­cordingly.

As noted in a case where an of­ficer finds a motorist unresponsive in a vehicle, in the early morning hours, parked at a strip mall that was closed for the night. The court stated, “Based on the deputy’s concern for Dermio’s safety the fact that Dermio was unresponsive to the deputy’s attempts to communicate with him, we hold that no unreasonable search or seizure occurred prior to the depu­ty opening the car door and smelling marijuana. The deputy was merely conducting a welfare check and that conduct did not violate constitutional principles." Dermio v. State, (2DCA 2013).

Most community caretaking situa­tions will arise from a 911 call for assistance. “A 911 call is a cry to the authorities for help. And until the investigating officer is reasonably satisfied that no emergency exists, he is within his legal duty to investigate such calls in a manner consistent with their emergency nature.”

“Indeed it is obvious that had the patrolmen been denied entry to the apartment they would have had the right, if not the duty, to gain entry forcibly.” In the Interest of J.B., (4DCA 1993).

Lastly, in those instances where the officers respond to an apparent domestic violence call for help, and the perpetrator stands at the door asserting his constitutional rights and demanding a search warrant prior to police entry, the U.S. Supreme Court had this to say in Georgia v. Ran­dolph, (2006): “No question has been raised, or reasonably could be, about the authority of the police to enter a dwelling to protect a resident from domestic violence; so long as they have good reason to believe such a threat exists, it would be silly to sug­gest that the police would commit a tort [a civil wrong] by entering, say, to give a complaining tenant the op­portunity to collect belongings and get out safely, or to determine wheth­er violence (or threat of violence) has just occurred or is about to (or soon will) occur, however much a spouse or other co-tenant objected... ”

Admit you have a double standard and I'll consider the conversation closed.

Just admit you don’t know what the hell you are talking about, as usual when it comes to the law, Mr. LWAN.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-18   18:48:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: nolu chan (#68)

having reasonable grounds

The police have no reasonable grounds at the time they enter the woman's house.

Zero, nothing.

watchman  posted on  2019-12-18   22:21:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: watchman (#70)

The police have no reasonable grounds at the time they enter the woman's house.

Zero, nothing.

New handle, same tired shit.

https://www.clickorlando.com/news/2019/10/28/winter-park-police-shoot-woman-during-well-being-check/

It happened 8 a.m. on a Sunday in September 2017. While Sapp was fast asleep in the Winter Park home she rented, her ex-boyfriend was calling Winter Park police.

"My girlfriend was threatening suicide last night, I just came to the house and trying to get in," Sapp's ex-boyfriend told the 911 operator.

It was a five minute, 34 second call that Sapp said changed her life.

"She is very well armed," Sapp's ex-boyfriend told the 911 operator when asked if Sapp had a gun.

"She's threatened suicide by cop before," he said.

"I was asleep in my bed. I was not at all contemplating a suicide or suicide by cop," Sapp told News 6.

When police arrived, Sapp's ex showed them how to enter the house, according to an interview with officer Jeff Marcum obtained by News 6.

"There’s one way into the house to crawl through a window and I don't want to do that at this point. I want someone here with me," Sapp's ex-boyfriend said during the call.

One officer lifted a kitchen window, leaned in and used a clothing hanger to unlock the back door, according to police.

Meanwhile, Marcum was still getting information from Sapp's ex.

"I'm asking if there's any weapons in the house, he tells me there's enough weapons in the house to start a revolution," Marcum said.

Then the three officers made their way into the house, through the living room, and finally to Sapp's bedroom where they see her sleeping.

"I'm thinking about the call suicide by cop," Marcum says during the interview.

Marcum, a 23-year-veteran with the Winter Park Police Department, describes in an interview with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement what happened next.

"We're yelling at her to, you know, let us see your hands, let us see your hands," Marcum said.

"I didn't have my glasses on, I'm legally blind," Sapp said. "I couldn't identify anybody, but I remember there being shadows figures standing in my room. They pulled the covers off me."

"At that point when she pulled the cover, Ms. Sapp immediately came up with a handgun and pointed it right at us," Marcum told investigators.

Sapp admits she slept with two guns. She and her ex had been in a fight the night before and she feared it was him coming back to the house, she said.

She says she had taken a sleeping pill the night before but says she did not point a gun at the officers.

"Then I remember getting tazed, " Sapp said.

Marcum said when Sapp wouldn't comply, one officer tazed her.

"She still pointed the gun at us, then comes back toward me and then goes back toward Lt. Bologna and Officer Eller and I fired a round," he said.

Sapp was shot in the shoulder.

Looks like there was a pre-trial confinement hearing on 10/8/2019

https://www.ninthcircuit.org/sites/default/files/MediaCases100719.pdf

10/8/2019
8:30
Jordan
9-A Pretrial Conf.
Sapp, Bobbie
2017-CF-12052-AO

https://wppd.org/about/department-divisions/operations-division/special-operations/

The shooter, Officer Jeff Marcum is now Sgt. Jeff Marcum.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-18   23:34:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: nolu chan, Pinguinite (#71)

Meanwhile, Marcum was still getting information from Sapp's ex.

All the cops had was the words of a jilted boyfriend.

In the case study you posted to Ping:

The Court of Appeals, after listing the FACTORS KNOWN to the officers,

pro­vided background information on Smith and Wallace’s previous dating relationship, including the existence of a no-contact order between them.

officers were una­ble to locate Wallace at a number of other locations. ...

only Smith responded to the officer’s initial knock on the door.

Wallace’s lack of response to any calls or messages on her cell phone

Did the officers knock on Sapp's door?

Did the officers try her cell phone?

Did the officers check to see if there was an order of protection against the boyfriend?

Did the officers do anything beyond take the word of a stalker?

By your own example of "reasonable grounds"...the cops didn't have any.

The shooter, Officer Jeff Marcum is now Sgt. Jeff Marcum.

Yeah, this is how they cover up a crime within their own ranks...give the shooter a promotion...makes him look so good at the hearing.

watchman  posted on  2019-12-19   7:29:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: nolu chan (#65)

And there is the natural law right of legally blind people to aim guns at blobs.

She's blind for the purpose of gaining sympathy, but only "legally-blind-and- able-to-use-a-gun" to justify her actions.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-19   9:51:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: nolu chan (#48)

You hypothetical has no basis.

True. But based on the non-existent and invented facts he presented, he makes a good case.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-12-19   10:02:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: nolu chan (#64)

They were not there to search for evidence of a crime.

Doesn't matter. The constitution says NO searches unless an oath was sworn.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and

She had a right to be secure in her house. They weren't allowed to enter constitutionally. But you know that if you are honest. The text means what it says. Not what some black robed asshole lies about. I know they can do what they want because we live under COLOR OF LAW. It penalizes you like real law but it isn't legitimate because it violates the Constitution. No doubt about it. None. Nada. Zero. Zip.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-12-19   10:36:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: misterwhite (#73)

She's blind for the purpose of gaining sympathy, but only "legally-blind-and- able-to-use-a-gun" to justify her actions.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

Your fruit stinks. It lies. It deceives. It ignores the constitution and the clear words. It is people like you that make ignoring the constitution possible. People who can't think like you for example are the problem. Not the whole problem but a large part of it.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-12-19   10:38:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: watchman (#72)

All the cops had was the words of a jilted boyfriend.

New handle, same tired old shit.

http://www.sa15.state.fl.us/stateattorney/ResourceInformation/_content/LegalEagle2016/July2016.pdf

Legal Eagle

A Newsletter for the Criminal Justice Community

July 2016

Published by:
Office of the State Attorney
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
B. Krischer, Editor

[Extract]

Community Caretaking: The Fourth Amendment provides, in relevant part, “the right of the people to be secure in their . . . houses . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.” “At the Amendment’s ‘very core’ stands ‘the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable government intru­sion.’” Florida v. Jardines, (2013).

While it is a basic principle of the Fourth Amendment that warrantless searches and seizures inside a home are presumptively unreasonable, the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is “reasonableness,” and it follows that the warrant require­ment is subject to certain exceptions. One such exception applies when police officers engage in community caretaking function. Cady v. Dom­browski, (S.Ct. 1973). The Supreme Court has long described the “community caretaking functions” of law enforcement as activities that are ‘"totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evi­dence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.” Community care­taking functions are performed by law enforcement to “help those in danger.” “A police officer may enter a residence without a warrant as a community caretaker where the of­ficer has a reasonable belief that an emergency exists requiring his or her attention.” The “reasonable belief” required under the community care­taker doctrine “is a less exacting standard than probable cause.”

A search or seizure under the com­munity caretaking function is reason­able if the governmental interest in law enforcement’s exercise of that function, based on specific and artic­ulable facts, outweighs the individu­al’s interest in freedom from govern­ment intrusion. “Our decisions there­fore confirm that authorities may enter a private dwelling based on a reasonable fear of a medical emer­gency. In those limited circumstanc­es, the sanctity of human life be­comes more important than the sanc­tity of the home.” Eastes v. State, (5DCA 2007).

Court's Ruling:

The Court of Appeals, after listing the factors known to the officers, easily found their entry into defend­ant’s home without a warrant lawful.

“The specific, articulable facts known to the officers at the time they entered the residence include the following facts, based on [Reporter’s] calls and information from dispatch. Wallace left the half­way house and had not returned by 5:00 p.m., the time she indicated she would return. [Reporter] stated dur­ing her first call to 911 that Smith may be holding Wallace at his home against her will. [Reporter] also pro­vided background information on Smith and Wallace’s previous dating relationship, including the existence of a no-contact order between them. The officers further learned from dispatch that other officers were una­ble to locate Wallace at a number of other locations. ... [Reporter] report that she was ‘sure’ Smith was armed. ... Further, only Smith responded to the officer’s initial knock on the door. Wallace had not responded to any phone calls or text messages since she left the half-way house, which was over three hours prior to the time the officers entered Smith’s residence. Finally, [Officer] noticed a person’s face at the back window of Smith’s home after Smith told officers Wallace was not at his home.”

“We are satisfied that the officers acted in their community caretaking function when they entered Smith’s residence. The circumstances resem­ble those in Harris and Quezada, in which officers responded to potential emergency situations to aid members of the community. See United States v. Harris, (8th Cir.2014) (holding that community caretaker doctrine ap­plied when officers responded to a call that a gun was sliding out of the pocket of a sleeping individual at a bus station); United States v. Queza­da, (8th Cir.2006) (holding that com­munity caretaker doctrine applied when officer encountered an emer­gency situation while serving a child protection order). The officers in the present case received a call from a concerned member of the community regarding the safety of another com­munity member. On the scene, the officers learned further details indi­cating serious concern for Wallace’s safety and establishing multiple rea­sons why she would be at Smith’s residence and held against her will or in danger.”

“We must next weigh the govern­ment’s interests in the officers’ entry against Smith’s right to be free from government intrusion. Smith con­tends that following his arrest, any emergency situation that the police officers may have believed existed inside the residence was extin­guished... Here, the officers did not enter Smith’s residence as a protec­tive sweep. As far as the officers reasonably knew at the time, Wallace could have been incapacitated within the residence in any number of ways that would prevent her from emerg­ing from the residence following Smith’s arrest. Wallace’s lack of response to any calls or messages on her cell phone since leaving the half­way house further suggested that she was unable to respond. The fact that officers saw a face in the window undermined Smith’s claim that he was the only person in the home at the time and a reasonable officer on the scene could believe the person seen in the window required their assistance. The justification for the officers’ entry arises from their obli­gation to help those in danger and ensure the safety of the public. ...We agree and conclude that the officers reasonably believed an emergency situation existed that required their immediate attention in the form of entering Smith’s residence to search for Wallace.”

“Further, we conclude the scope of the encounter was carefully tailored to satisfy the purpose. The officers entered Smith’s residence for the purpose of locating Wallace. They first announced their presence at the entrance of the home but received no response. Within thirty seconds, Wallace called out and indicated she was ‘in the bedroom.’ The officers went to the bedroom and began speaking with Wallace there. Smith does not argue the officers ventured beyond the bedroom once inside his home. The firearm at issue in this case was lying on the bed in the bed­room where Wallace was located. It was only partially covered by a bed sheet. The plain view doctrine there­fore applies. ...Because the officers had a lawful basis for entering Smith’s apartment under their func­tion as community caretakers, the firearm lying on the bed in the room in which Wallace was found is ad­missible under the plain view doc­trine.

AFFIRMED.”

Lessons Learned:

Community Caretaking is a powerful exception to the warrant requirement, but its application will be dependent on how the offense report is worded. Keep in mind that the basis for this warrant exception is that the police action is "totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisi­tion of evidence relating to the viola­tion of a criminal statute." If applica­ble the report should be worded ac­cordingly.

As noted in a case where an of­ficer finds a motorist unresponsive in a vehicle, in the early morning hours, parked at a strip mall that was closed for the night. The court stated, “Based on the deputy’s concern for Dermio’s safety the fact that Dermio was unresponsive to the deputy’s attempts to communicate with him, we hold that no unreasonable search or seizure occurred prior to the depu­ty opening the car door and smelling marijuana. The deputy was merely conducting a welfare check and that conduct did not violate constitutional principles." Dermio v. State, (2DCA 2013).

Most community caretaking situa­tions will arise from a 911 call for assistance. “A 911 call is a cry to the authorities for help. And until the investigating officer is reasonably satisfied that no emergency exists, he is within his legal duty to investigate such calls in a manner consistent with their emergency nature.”

“Indeed it is obvious that had the patrolmen been denied entry to the apartment they would have had the right, if not the duty, to gain entry forcibly.” In the Interest of J.B., (4DCA 1993).

Lastly, in those instances where the officers respond to an apparent domestic violence call for help, and the perpetrator stands at the door asserting his constitutional rights and demanding a search warrant prior to police entry, the U.S. Supreme Court had this to say in Georgia v. Ran­dolph, (2006): “No question has been raised, or reasonably could be, about the authority of the police to enter a dwelling to protect a resident from domestic violence; so long as they have good reason to believe such a threat exists, it would be silly to sug­gest that the police would commit a tort [a civil wrong] by entering, say, to give a complaining tenant the op­portunity to collect belongings and get out safely, or to determine wheth­er violence (or threat of violence) has just occurred or is about to (or soon will) occur, however much a spouse or other co-tenant objected... ”

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-19   12:29:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: A K A Stone (#75) (Edited)

The constitution says NO searches unless an oath was sworn.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and

She had a right to be secure in her house. They weren't allowed to enter constitutionally. But you know that if you are honest. The text means what it says. Not what some black robed asshole lies about. I know they can do what they want because we live under COLOR OF LAW. It penalizes you like real law but it isn't legitimate because it violates the Constitution. No doubt about it. None. Nada. Zero. Zip.

Wrong.

http://www.sa15.state.fl.us/stateattorney/ResourceInformation/_content/LegalEagle2016/July2016.pdf

Legal Eagle

A Newsletter for the Criminal Justice Community

July 2016

Published by:
Office of the State Attorney
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
B. Krischer, Editor

[Extract]

Community Caretaking: The Fourth Amendment provides, in relevant part, “the right of the people to be secure in their . . . houses . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.” “At the Amendment’s ‘very core’ stands ‘the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable government intru­sion.’” Florida v. Jardines, (2013).

While it is a basic principle of the Fourth Amendment that warrantless searches and seizures inside a home are presumptively unreasonable, the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is “reasonableness,” and it follows that the warrant require­ment is subject to certain exceptions. One such exception applies when police officers engage in community caretaking function. Cady v. Dom­browski, (S.Ct. 1973). The Supreme Court has long described the “community caretaking functions” of law enforcement as activities that are ‘"totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evi­dence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.” Community care­taking functions are performed by law enforcement to “help those in danger.” “A police officer may enter a residence without a warrant as a community caretaker where the of­ficer has a reasonable belief that an emergency exists requiring his or her attention.” The “reasonable belief” required under the community care­taker doctrine “is a less exacting standard than probable cause.”

A search or seizure under the com­munity caretaking function is reason­able if the governmental interest in law enforcement’s exercise of that function, based on specific and artic­ulable facts, outweighs the individu­al’s interest in freedom from govern­ment intrusion. “Our decisions there­fore confirm that authorities may enter a private dwelling based on a reasonable fear of a medical emer­gency. In those limited circumstanc­es, the sanctity of human life be­comes more important than the sanc­tity of the home.” Eastes v. State, (5DCA 2007).

Court's Ruling:

The Court of Appeals, after listing the factors known to the officers, easily found their entry into defend­ant’s home without a warrant lawful.

“The specific, articulable facts known to the officers at the time they entered the residence include the following facts, based on [Reporter’s] calls and information from dispatch. Wallace left the half­way house and had not returned by 5:00 p.m., the time she indicated she would return. [Reporter] stated dur­ing her first call to 911 that Smith may be holding Wallace at his home against her will. [Reporter] also pro­vided background information on Smith and Wallace’s previous dating relationship, including the existence of a no-contact order between them. The officers further learned from dispatch that other officers were una­ble to locate Wallace at a number of other locations. ... [Reporter] report that she was ‘sure’ Smith was armed. ... Further, only Smith responded to the officer’s initial knock on the door. Wallace had not responded to any phone calls or text messages since she left the half-way house, which was over three hours prior to the time the officers entered Smith’s residence. Finally, [Officer] noticed a person’s face at the back window of Smith’s home after Smith told officers Wallace was not at his home.”

“We are satisfied that the officers acted in their community caretaking function when they entered Smith’s residence. The circumstances resem­ble those in Harris and Quezada, in which officers responded to potential emergency situations to aid members of the community. See United States v. Harris, (8th Cir.2014) (holding that community caretaker doctrine ap­plied when officers responded to a call that a gun was sliding out of the pocket of a sleeping individual at a bus station); United States v. Queza­da, (8th Cir.2006) (holding that com­munity caretaker doctrine applied when officer encountered an emer­gency situation while serving a child protection order). The officers in the present case received a call from a concerned member of the community regarding the safety of another com­munity member. On the scene, the officers learned further details indi­cating serious concern for Wallace’s safety and establishing multiple rea­sons why she would be at Smith’s residence and held against her will or in danger.”

“We must next weigh the govern­ment’s interests in the officers’ entry against Smith’s right to be free from government intrusion. Smith con­tends that following his arrest, any emergency situation that the police officers may have believed existed inside the residence was extin­guished... Here, the officers did not enter Smith’s residence as a protec­tive sweep. As far as the officers reasonably knew at the time, Wallace could have been incapacitated within the residence in any number of ways that would prevent her from emerg­ing from the residence following Smith’s arrest. Wallace’s lack of response to any calls or messages on her cell phone since leaving the half­way house further suggested that she was unable to respond. The fact that officers saw a face in the window undermined Smith’s claim that he was the only person in the home at the time and a reasonable officer on the scene could believe the person seen in the window required their assistance. The justification for the officers’ entry arises from their obli­gation to help those in danger and ensure the safety of the public. ...We agree and conclude that the officers reasonably believed an emergency situation existed that required their immediate attention in the form of entering Smith’s residence to search for Wallace.”

“Further, we conclude the scope of the encounter was carefully tailored to satisfy the purpose. The officers entered Smith’s residence for the purpose of locating Wallace. They first announced their presence at the entrance of the home but received no response. Within thirty seconds, Wallace called out and indicated she was ‘in the bedroom.’ The officers went to the bedroom and began speaking with Wallace there. Smith does not argue the officers ventured beyond the bedroom once inside his home. The firearm at issue in this case was lying on the bed in the bed­room where Wallace was located. It was only partially covered by a bed sheet. The plain view doctrine there­fore applies. ...Because the officers had a lawful basis for entering Smith’s apartment under their func­tion as community caretakers, the firearm lying on the bed in the room in which Wallace was found is ad­missible under the plain view doc­trine.

AFFIRMED.”

Lessons Learned:

Community Caretaking is a powerful exception to the warrant requirement, but its application will be dependent on how the offense report is worded. Keep in mind that the basis for this warrant exception is that the police action is "totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisi­tion of evidence relating to the viola­tion of a criminal statute." If applica­ble the report should be worded ac­cordingly.

As noted in a case where an of­ficer finds a motorist unresponsive in a vehicle, in the early morning hours, parked at a strip mall that was closed for the night. The court stated, “Based on the deputy’s concern for Dermio’s safety the fact that Dermio was unresponsive to the deputy’s attempts to communicate with him, we hold that no unreasonable search or seizure occurred prior to the depu­ty opening the car door and smelling marijuana. The deputy was merely conducting a welfare check and that conduct did not violate constitutional principles." Dermio v. State, (2DCA 2013).

Most community caretaking situa­tions will arise from a 911 call for assistance. “A 911 call is a cry to the authorities for help. And until the investigating officer is reasonably satisfied that no emergency exists, he is within his legal duty to investigate such calls in a manner consistent with their emergency nature.”

“Indeed it is obvious that had the patrolmen been denied entry to the apartment they would have had the right, if not the duty, to gain entry forcibly.” In the Interest of J.B., (4DCA 1993).

Lastly, in those instances where the officers respond to an apparent domestic violence call for help, and the perpetrator stands at the door asserting his constitutional rights and demanding a search warrant prior to police entry, the U.S. Supreme Court had this to say in Georgia v. Ran­dolph, (2006): “No question has been raised, or reasonably could be, about the authority of the police to enter a dwelling to protect a resident from domestic violence; so long as they have good reason to believe such a threat exists, it would be silly to sug­gest that the police would commit a tort [a civil wrong] by entering, say, to give a complaining tenant the op­portunity to collect belongings and get out safely, or to determine wheth­er violence (or threat of violence) has just occurred or is about to (or soon will) occur, however much a spouse or other co-tenant objected... ”

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-19   12:31:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: nolu chan (#77)

New handle

What are you trying to say...new handle...what?

And why do you stand with stalkers and abusers?

watchman  posted on  2019-12-19   12:40:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: nolu chan, misterwhite (#77)

Community Caretaking

Just another way to override the 4th.

If tyrants don't have a law to justify their evil actions...they'll just make a new law that does.

Gov. Blackface and Co. are doing that now in Virginia...and they are probably looking for talent like you...better hurry before misterwhite gets your job.

watchman  posted on  2019-12-19   12:48:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: watchman (#79)

What are you trying to say...new handle...what?

I reject that you are that terminally stupid.

And why do you stand with stalkers and abusers?

Why do you spew bullshit about the cops being invaders, stalkers or abusers?

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT

JOHNATHAN EASTES,
Appellant, v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.

JULY TERM 2007
Case No. 5D06-3583
________________/

Opinion filed July 13, 2007
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Brevard County, George W. Maxwell III , Judge.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and
David S. Morgan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and
Douglas T. Squire,
Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

EVANDER, J.

[...]

On appeal, Eastes first argues that the trial court erred in failing to exclude any evidence obtained subsequent to Officer Wical's warrantless entry into his apartment. Although it is unclear as to what evidence Eastes requested to be suppressed, we will address the legality of Officer Wical's entry into the apartment. The Fourth Amendment does not bar a police officer from making a warrantless entry into a residence when the officer reasonably believes that a person within is in need of immediate aid. See Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 (1978); Riggs v. State, 918 So. 2d 274, 279 (Fla. 2005).

Our decisions therefore confirm that authorities may enter a private dwelling based on a reasonable fear of a medical emergency. In those limited circumstances, the sanctity of human life becomes more important than the sanctity of the home.

Riggs, 918 So. 2d at 281. Furthermore, it is immaterial whether an actual emergency existed. The test is whether the officer reasonably believed an emergency existed at the time of the warrantless entry. Seibert v. State, 923 So. 2d 460, 468 (Fla.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 198 (2006). The officer's search must be "strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation." Mincey, 437 U.S. at 393. Thus, an officer must cease a search once it is determined that no emergency exists. Seibert, 923 So. 2d at 468.

In the present case, Officer Wical had a reasonable basis to believe that a medical emergency existed at the time he entered Eastes' apartment. The officers were responding to a "disturbance, possible suicidal person" call. Eastes had blood on both arms from his forearms to his fingers. There was broken glass on his apartment floor and his furniture was in disarray. Eastes made no attempt to dispel Wical's concerns for his (Eastes') safety at any time prior to Wical's entry into the apartment.

The concerns that justified Officer Wical's entry into the apartment were not alleviated prior to Eastes' battery of Officer Ashouri. After entering Eastes' apartment, Wical observed Eastes' arms were still bleeding and there was blood on the microwave door, on a table, and on the floor. Additionally, Eastes continued to refuse to provide any information to Wical, which might alleviate Wical's belief that Eastes was a threat to harm himself. The evidence amply supports the trial court's conclusion that Officer Wical had legally entered Eastes' apartment.

[...]

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-19   14:35:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: watchman, misterwhite (#80)

Just another way to override the 4th.

Why do you perpetuate bullshit?

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT

JOHNATHAN EASTES,
Appellant, v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.

JULY TERM 2007
Case No. 5D06-3583
________________/

Opinion filed July 13, 2007
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Brevard County, George W. Maxwell III , Judge.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and
David S. Morgan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and
Douglas T. Squire,
Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

EVANDER, J.

[...]

On appeal, Eastes first argues that the trial court erred in failing to exclude any evidence obtained subsequent to Officer Wical's warrantless entry into his apartment. Although it is unclear as to what evidence Eastes requested to be suppressed, we will address the legality of Officer Wical's entry into the apartment. The Fourth Amendment does not bar a police officer from making a warrantless entry into a residence when the officer reasonably believes that a person within is in need of immediate aid. See Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 (1978); Riggs v. State, 918 So. 2d 274, 279 (Fla. 2005).

Our decisions therefore confirm that authorities may enter a private dwelling based on a reasonable fear of a medical emergency. In those limited circumstances, the sanctity of human life becomes more important than the sanctity of the home.

Riggs, 918 So. 2d at 281. Furthermore, it is immaterial whether an actual emergency existed. The test is whether the officer reasonably believed an emergency existed at the time of the warrantless entry. Seibert v. State, 923 So. 2d 460, 468 (Fla.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 198 (2006). The officer's search must be "strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation." Mincey, 437 U.S. at 393. Thus, an officer must cease a search once it is determined that no emergency exists. Seibert, 923 So. 2d at 468.

In the present case, Officer Wical had a reasonable basis to believe that a medical emergency existed at the time he entered Eastes' apartment. The officers were responding to a "disturbance, possible suicidal person" call. Eastes had blood on both arms from his forearms to his fingers. There was broken glass on his apartment floor and his furniture was in disarray. Eastes made no attempt to dispel Wical's concerns for his (Eastes') safety at any time prior to Wical's entry into the apartment.

The concerns that justified Officer Wical's entry into the apartment were not alleviated prior to Eastes' battery of Officer Ashouri. After entering Eastes' apartment, Wical observed Eastes' arms were still bleeding and there was blood on the microwave door, on a table, and on the floor. Additionally, Eastes continued to refuse to provide any information to Wical, which might alleviate Wical's belief that Eastes was a threat to harm himself. The evidence amply supports the trial court's conclusion that Officer Wical had legally entered Eastes' apartment.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-19   14:37:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: misterwhite (#73)

She's blind for the purpose of gaining sympathy, but only "legally-blind-and- able-to-use-a-gun" to justify her actions.

Yeah, and the targets were not cops in full uniform, but just blobs. Blobs bad.

She will be given the same opportunity to justify her actions as Mr. LWAN was given to justify his actions.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-19   14:41:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: misterwhite (#74)

True. But based on the non-existent and invented facts he presented, he makes a good case.

Yes, it will prove persuasive in his Court of the Imagination, with an imaginary anarchist judge, and twelve anarcho-libertarian jurors.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-19   14:44:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: nolu chan (#78)

Courts rule the opposite all the time. Then they vote on stuff. Then it comes up again and other judges say other things.

When they get it wrong it is color of law. It still penalizes you it still incarcerates you. But it is truly not a right decision because anyone with a third or fourth grade education can see it violates the very plane words of the amendment.

Color of law. Case dismissed.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-12-19   14:54:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#86. To: nolu chan (#67)

#59. To: nolu chan (#52)

It looks like this is just a game to you. You've got nothing better to do with your life than to bait people into arguments that you have no intention of honestly engaging.

Anthem posted on 2019-12-18 3:54:23 ET

#67. To: Anthem (#59)

Oh heck, just leave, rehandle yet again and come back as juvenile dumbshit.

nolu chan posted on 2019-12-18 18:12:36 ET

I'll leave it to others to decide whose post is that of a juvenile dumbshit.

Anthem  posted on  2019-12-19   16:23:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#87. To: Anthem (#86)

I'll leave it to others to decide whose post is that of a juvenile dumbshit.

Yes, it a tough choice to make between your bllshit pulled out of your ass, and the actual law, as quoted in a relevant court opinion. You can continue to act like a dumbshit and remove all doubt.

Anthem #58: “Are we loosing track of the fact that these guys invaded her house, with no probable cause....”

Police officers responding to a report of an armed woman contemplating suicide by cop, who reasonably believe someone is inside who needs help, are not invaders, and according to the law, they need neither a warrant, court order, nor probable cause of a crime, to enter a residence. Whether there is an actual emergency is immaterial. People are free to believe you or the lying laws and courts.

It can explain the law to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT

JOHNATHAN EASTES,
Appellant, v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.

JULY TERM 2007
Case No. 5D06-3583
________________/

Opinion filed July 13, 2007
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Brevard County, George W. Maxwell III , Judge.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and
David S. Morgan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and
Douglas T. Squire,
Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

EVANDER, J.

[...]

On appeal, Eastes first argues that the trial court erred in failing to exclude any evidence obtained subsequent to Officer Wical's warrantless entry into his apartment. Although it is unclear as to what evidence Eastes requested to be suppressed, we will address the legality of Officer Wical's entry into the apartment. The Fourth Amendment does not bar a police officer from making a warrantless entry into a residence when the officer reasonably believes that a person within is in need of immediate aid. See Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 (1978); Riggs v. State, 918 So. 2d 274, 279 (Fla. 2005).

Our decisions therefore confirm that authorities may enter a private dwelling based on a reasonable fear of a medical emergency. In those limited circumstances, the sanctity of human life becomes more important than the sanctity of the home.

Riggs, 918 So. 2d at 281. Furthermore, it is immaterial whether an actual emergency existed. The test is whether the officer reasonably believed an emergency existed at the time of the warrantless entry. Seibert v. State, 923 So. 2d 460, 468 (Fla.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 198 (2006). The officer's search must be "strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation." Mincey, 437 U.S. at 393. Thus, an officer must cease a search once it is determined that no emergency exists. Seibert, 923 So. 2d at 468.

In the present case, Officer Wical had a reasonable basis to believe that a medical emergency existed at the time he entered Eastes' apartment. The officers were responding to a "disturbance, possible suicidal person" call. Eastes had blood on both arms from his forearms to his fingers. There was broken glass on his apartment floor and his furniture was in disarray. Eastes made no attempt to dispel Wical's concerns for his (Eastes') safety at any time prior to Wical's entry into the apartment.

The concerns that justified Officer Wical's entry into the apartment were not alleviated prior to Eastes' battery of Officer Ashouri. After entering Eastes' apartment, Wical observed Eastes' arms were still bleeding and there was blood on the microwave door, on a table, and on the floor. Additionally, Eastes continued to refuse to provide any information to Wical, which might alleviate Wical's belief that Eastes was a threat to harm himself. The evidence amply supports the trial court's conclusion that Officer Wical had legally entered Eastes' apartment.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-19   18:32:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: nolu chan (#87)

Do you bother to read the hail mary desperate legal lunges that you post?

the officer reasonably believes

Apparently recruiting for low IQ's and requiring reasoning capabilities isn't some sort of psychotic cognitive dissonance on your part.

that a person within is in need of immediate aid.

And they gave it to this sleeping 49 year old Registered Nurse (RN), good and hard.

Anthem  posted on  2019-12-19   19:40:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: Anthem (#88)

Do you bother to read the hail mary desperate legal lunges that you post?

Yes, and unlike the bullshit you post, my "desperate legal lunges" are on-point court opinions and relevant statute laws.

Apparently, such are not amenable to your IQ.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-20   19:33:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: nolu chan (#64)

A welfare check, also known as a wellness check, occurs when law enforcement officers respond to a request to check on the safety and well-being of a person

Based on the word of a vindictive ex-boyfriend.

Same shit the cops pull when the rely on so-called "confidential informants".

Sure - why not? I mean that's what cops do - lie.

Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.

Deckard  posted on  2019-12-20   19:39:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#91. To: nolu chan (#66)

Community Caretaking Doctrine under which police receiving a call for a welfare check, and having reasonable grounds

Reasonable grounds?

You frigging copsucker - they went in based on what the woman's ex-boyfriend said.

...the entire incident began because her disgruntled ex-boyfriend used a police welfare check to deliberately harm her. It worked.

“He used this wellness check as a way to put me in harm’s way,” she said.

Indeed, instead of actually investigating the situation by knocking on the door, calling her, or any other number of non-violent means, cops helped this man — who did not live in the house and could have been anyone — break in to her home and then shoot this woman on his behalf.

“My girlfriend was threatening suicide last night, I just came to the house and trying to get in,” Sapp’s ex-boyfriend told the 911 operator.

Sapp says these were all lies. If she actually wanted to kill herself, she could’ve used one of the two guns which she regularly sleeps with. She did not.

“She is very well armed,” Sapp’s ex-boyfriend told the 911 operator when asked if Sapp had a gun.

“She’s threatened suicide by cop before,” he said.

There is no record of Sapp ever attempting to commit suicide by herself or by cop before. Also, if she was trying to commit suicide by cop that night — she would have had to call the cops. She did not call the police.

“I was asleep in my bed. I was not at all contemplating a suicide or suicide by cop,” Sapp told News 6.

Nevertheless, police show up to the home and start taking directions from Sapp’s ex, who did not live there.

“There’s one way into the house to crawl through a window and I don’t want to do that at this point. I want someone here with me,” Sapp’s ex-boyfriend said during the call.

When police arrived on scene, Sapp’s ex showed them how to break into the home and they followed his directions.

Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.

Deckard  posted on  2019-12-20   19:44:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#92. To: Deckard (#90)

Based on the word of a vindictive ex-boyfriend.

Eastes v. Florida, supra

[Excerpt]

Furthermore, it is immaterial whether an actual emergency existed. The test is whether the officer reasonably believed an emergency existed at the time of the warrantless entry. Seibert v. State, 923 So. 2d 460, 468 (Fla.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 198 (2006).

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-20   20:54:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#93. To: Deckard (#91)

Reasonable grounds?

Eastes v. Florida, supra

[Excerpt]

On appeal, Eastes first argues that the trial court erred in failing to exclude any evidence obtained subsequent to Officer Wical's warrantless entry into his apartment. Although it is unclear as to what evidence Eastes requested to be suppressed, we will address the legality of Officer Wical's entry into the apartment. The Fourth Amendment does not bar a police officer from making a warrantless entry into a residence when the officer reasonably believes that a person within is in need of immediate aid. See Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 (1978); Riggs v. State, 918 So. 2d 274, 279 (Fla. 2005).

Our decisions therefore confirm that authorities may enter a private dwelling based on a reasonable fear of a medical emergency. In those limited circumstances, the sanctity of human life becomes more important than the sanctity of the home.

Riggs, 918 So. 2d at 281. Furthermore, it is immaterial whether an actual emergency existed. The test is whether the officer reasonably believed an emergency existed at the time of the warrantless entry. Seibert v. State, 923 So. 2d 460, 468 (Fla.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 198 (2006). The officer's search must be "strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation." Mincey, 437 U.S. at 393. Thus, an officer must cease a search once it is determined that no emergency exists. Seibert, 923 So. 2d at 468.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-20   20:57:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com