How ridiculous is this?

[OULobo]

http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/crimelaw/features/9269/index.html

I can't believe the police are so stubborn (or bored) in this town to pull that much personel off their patrols to hound some kids at a party that is already been ruined. Then the police and parents try to say that the kids left the town unprotected. How flaming ludicrus is this? More importantly what could the police possibly prosecute these kids for. They don't have to let them in, period. The brew is already packaged and disposed of and without the police actually witnessing the consumption of it. If the police wanted to force the issue, let them break down the door and face the consequences of the damage and possibly unjustified forceful entry. Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[OUMoose]

That has to be an editorialized joke or something, otherwise that's certainly a town to scratch off my list of living in.

 

[shesulsa]

http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/crimelaw/features/9269/index.html

I can't believe the police are so stubborn (or bored) in this town to pull that much personel off their patrols to hound some kids at a party that is already been ruined. Then the police and parents try to say that the kids left the town unprotected. How flaming ludicrus is this? More importantly what could the police possibly prosecute these kids for. They don't have to let them in, period. The brew is already packaged and disposed of and without the police actually witnessing the consumption of it. If the police wanted to force the issue, let them break down the door and face the consequences of the damage and possibly unjustified forceful entry. Absolutely ridiculous.

A-greed! First of all, where are the parents when their kids are out partying like this (ok, I'm a bit old-fashioned)? Second, leave the town unprotected because of a party? Can you say retribution? Third, where do they get off confiscating their I.D.'s? Fourth, what is the charge when a police officer finds a minor who has been drinking but is not in posession? Do they perform a breatholizer test? can they because of the minor status? I really don't know. It's not like they were sequestered in there with weapons.

I think there are two things wrong here - I wouldn't dream of letting my kid spend the night out with friends (all night, anyway), and not know where they were. And the cops totally overreacted to the situation. This is what gives cops a bad name.

Jeez.

 

[Flatlander]

Totally insane. For those of you wishing to let them know your thoughts, as I did, I found their e-mail address :[email protected] <[email protected]>

 

[MA-Caver]

In yet another post on yet another thread I made statements (that I still hold to) that parents are ultimately responsible for the actions/behaviors of their children, irregardless of their ages. How they raise their children today will make the adults of tomorrow.
The kids knew the rules and should comply. Parents knew the rules about under-aged drinking and should've been there to make sure of the kids. Cops know the rules regarding the constitution of the U.S.of A regarding searches and whatever else.
What gets me is the line:

Once, a cop had even come inside and played a quick round of beer pong, a drinking game not worth explaining.

Now I don't know what "beer pong" ... (I've heard and seen beer bongs but not pong) is but the fact that an officer of the law (on duty??) consumed alcohol in front of these teenagers sets a way good example huh?

Of course one of the kids flipping the cops off isn't very smart either.
(funny I'll admit, but not smart)

This line is ultimately and unfortunately true:

Here was the problem with trying to be fair: The masses were speckled with numbskulls who could be disproportionately influential.

Now the cops had "probable cause" to enter the house especially when their authority was being so blatently defied. Still accusing the kids of leaving the town un-protected? :idunno: about that one. It wasn't a riot and it wasn't disruptive except for the large presence of police surrounding the house trying to get in and pounding on the door... (how ironic is that?).

Every so often one of the older detectives would look a kid in the eye and proclaim, “Twenty-four years on the force, and never—I mean, never—have I seen such blatant disrespect from teenagers.”

Who's fault is that?? The parents, teachers, coaches, (ironically) the police(as authority figures) & other adults who are in some (small) ways responsible for guiding young ones via examples.

Alone in the garage, Paxton had been waiting patiently. He now crawled out from under the car, carefully walked to the rear door in the kitchen, slipped unseen into the backyard, and ran home.

Probably THE smartest person that night. :uhyeah:

 

[Flatlander]

In yet another post on yet another thread I made statements (that I still hold to) that parents are ultimately responsible for the actions/behaviors of their children, irregardless of their ages.

I'm mainly with you on this, but what do you guys think of this?

http://calgary.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=ca_fire20040622

This scares me a bit...

 

[OULobo]

In yet another post on yet another thread I made statements (that I still hold to) that parents are ultimately responsible for the actions/behaviors of their children, irregardless of their ages. How they raise their children today will make the adults of tomorrow.

The kids knew the rules and should comply. Parents knew the rules about under-aged drinking and should've been there to make sure of the kids. Cops know the rules regarding the constitution of the U.S.of A regarding searches and whatever else.

No argument here, we've established the initial wrong doing of the minors, what I am questioning is the actions of the police.

What gets me is the line: Now I don't know what "beer pong" ... (I've heard and seen beer bongs but not pong) is but the fact that an officer of the law (on duty??) consumed alcohol in front of these teenagers sets a way good example huh?

Beer pong is a game where you try to bounce pingpong balls into cups across a table, and if you make it the other team has to drink.

Of course one of the kids flipping the cops off isn't very smart either.
(funny I'll admit, but not smart)

Very funny, not very smart, but not illegal.

Now the cops had "probable cause" to enter the house especially when their authority was being so blatently defied. Still accusing the kids of leaving the town un-protected? :idunno: about that one. It wasn't a riot and it wasn't disruptive except for the large presence of police surrounding the house trying to get in and pounding on the door... (how ironic is that?).

What probable cause? Loud kids in a house (and that is all the police can assume) aren't a threat to the public or a probable indicator of any illegal activity, regardless if the parents are home or not. The waste of resources and the unnecessary disturbance that six cruisers causes is unjustifiable in the context of busting up a party that may or may not involve minors with alcohol or drugs. Refusing to open a door or allow entry to a law enforcement officer isn't illegal and doesn't give probable cause. I won't even mention all the dirty tricks (but still legal) the officers used to try to gain entry. [/QUOTE]

More importantly, I would like to see if any of the charges on the minors actually stick. There is no proof the minors actually consumed the alcohol. When I was in school we had a situation like this.

The police came to a high school party, the kid who lived there went to the door and told the police that he wasn't giving them permission to come in. They just said to turn down the music and make sure everyone was safe. It could be that they were just being cool cops, but later a lawyer told me that thay aren't allowed in unless 1) they have a warrant, 2) they see a crime in progress (ie a minor with a beer in his hand), 3) they are granted permission to enter (by anyone on the premises or the owner, 4) the door is left open.

When I was in college it was even worse for the officers. There they had to see a minor consuming alcohol, because there were so many parties where there were under and over agers they had to see an underager consume before they could crash the party, issue tickets or arrest anyone.

 

[MA-Caver]

Well, I'm sure there are officers who are on MT that may (or not) agree with this. A friend (who is a cop) told me once that probable cause means that if you give a cop reason to suspect then they got "probable cause." So if the kids are NOT opening the door upon "request" then demand from law enforcement officials then they just got probable cause.

 

[OULobo]

Well, I'm sure there are officers who are on MT that may (or not) agree with this. A friend (who is a cop) told me once that probable cause means that if you give a cop reason to suspect then they got "probable cause." So if the kids are NOT opening the door upon "request" then demand from law enforcement officials then they just got probable cause.

They can do it if they wish, but the judge will have their butts later, not to mention justifiable defense of property issues and property damage issues from a forced entry. Although probable cause can be pretty wishy-washy, this particular case is decided by past precidence, as it has been tried before. Denying an officer entry doesn't give probable cause, only reasonable suspicion (you even said it without realizing it when you said ". . .give a cop reason to suspect. . ."; reasonable suspicion / reason to suspect, same thing, but not probable cause), which doesn't allow the officer to trounce your civil rights. That's the whole purpose of a search warrant.

Same thing in a car; if you tell the cop he doesn't have your permission for a search, your denying him search rights isn't grounds for probable cause, despite the fact that it may seem suspicious. If he sees an article that points to a crime, like a crack pipe, MJ seed, spent shell (questionable), blood, ect., then he could forcibly search on grounds of probable cause. The house is almost the same situation. Bottom line: excersizing your civil rights and not cooperating with police searches, doesn't give the officer probable cause and doesn't allow the officer to forcibly enter.

The worst thing is that if you ask a cop, 50% tell you this is your right and the other 50% puff up their chests and say they can do anything because of "probable cause" or some other trick. The people to ask aren't the officers, it's the judges, prosecuters and defense lawyers. Even if the police find illegal items in a car and even if those items lead to a higher crime, if the car was searched illegally, there are no charges and no punishments, besides to the officers that flubbed up the search.

 

[Tgace]

How about just not breaking the law...thats good too.

 

[OULobo]

How about just not breaking the law...thats good too.

How 'bout justifying citizen tax dollars with something more constructive than a pissing match between a handfull of adolecents hiding in a house and at least 6 officers that can't seem to find something better to do than set up a stand-off over a few beers and a dead party.

But I do understand that they root of the issue is the kids breaking the law.

 

[KenpoTex]

A friend (who is a cop) told me once that probable cause means that if you give a cop reason to suspect then they got "probable cause." So if the kids are NOT opening the door upon "request" then demand from law enforcement officials then they just got probable cause.

As I remember from my Criminal Justice classes, Probable Cause is defined as: "Facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been (or is about to be) commited."

Denying an officer entry doesn't give probable cause, only reasonable suspicion.

Correct, reasonable suspicion is also a legal term and in some cases it is enough to constitute a search (i.e. Terry v. Ohio) but you have to have more proof to have probable cause. For example. A cop sees a car full of teenagers cruising at 3:00 in the morning. So, based on "reasonable suspicion" he pulls them over to see what he can stir up. At this point he does not have enough "proof" to search the vehicle, however if he walks up and smells MJ or sees a beer can laying in the back he would have PC. Probable cause can also be developed; I know a deputy sheriff that pulled a guy over for expired tags, when he walked up to the car the guy had a bumper sticker with a picture of a MJ leaf on it. "What's with the sticker?" "Oh, you know, I smoke a little weed sometimes" Bingo! Probable Cause (admission of a criminal act).
Okay class, that concludes today's lecture.

 

[MA-Caver]

Yeah but.... :rofl:

Well I can give a brief little story about a time I got pulled over in Illinois but that might be a whole other thread. In short, the officers pulled me over for bogus traffic offenses (read: my word against theirs... I DID have my turn-signal on) and wanted to search the vehicle I and my friends were in. The circumstances that probably looked suspicious to them?? Two white guys and one black woman... (my friend's wife)...it had to been that reason.
I almost denied them search rights but knew there was nothing illegal in the car (they asked if we had guns ...oh pluzzeeesee ), so I let them so not to give a hassel because we were in a hurry to get to a funeral in Michigan.
Anyway... it's a sticky. As the article says everyone knew everyone else in the town. They had a damn good idea that there was alcohol in the house and there was an extreme likely hood that (some) party-participants would be underage. The kids did wrong by not opening the door to the first set of cops and saying yeah, we'll turn the music down and cool it... everybody is about passed out anyway. But of course someone had the bright idea of "don't open the door man!"

 

[KenpoTess]

Thread moved to Study for content

~Tess
-MT S. Mod-