4 police officers shot in Lakewood NJ, US

[KpdPipes 388]

[Can you set up a ride along? I would love that!

My dept wont do them because of liability, check with your local departments though.

[SpecialK 193]

it is a sharp learning curve. if you've never had to kick a door in I suggest you retract your post or at least add that fact to your post. let's put it this way, I am going to Vegas next weekend, is it impossible for me to walk away with a lot of money(legally through gambling, not just stealing it)? no, but it is unlikely. Only I will be there to see the cards fall though, so unless you are standing next to me or them leave your Monday night quarter backing to yourself.

 

The best we can hope for is that this serves as a wake up call to those that need it and a reminder to those that don't.

 

My heart gose out to the survivors of this mess, I hope the loved ones can carry on and not make silly political decisions because of this.

 

P.S. no knocks, when you could just spend the money for a 2 week stake out instead waiting for the right moment, are retarded, what's the rush????? We are in a time of peace in this country(physically) right?

[GoNRA 12]

Heard this morning, 2 officers were shot in the vest, the Lt. shot in the foot, and the one who was shot in the face may lose sight in one eye. But all of them thankfully survived the ordeal.

[tony357 386]

On the news today.... The suspect might not be the guy they were looking for??????

 

Any more on this?

[GoNRA 12]

wow if that is the case and it was infact the wrong place, I would sue the shit out of lakewood p.d. if I was one of those cops that got shot. But then again I dont know who put in the affidavit to get signed by the judge. I'm sure there is going to be a deep investigation.

[GoNRA 12]

latest story doesn't mention anything about it being the wrong guy.

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... wD9AUKRV00

[Guest]

Yikes! This is getting worse?

[GoNRA 12]

warrants from what i've learned are suppose to have exactly what is to be searched, what exactly your looking for, and strong proof that what you are looking for is in the residence before handing the affidavit to the judge. So far I dont see any mention that what they were looking for originally was found, all they found so far was a stolen revolver out of south carolina. I'm not 100% on this, but I think that anything other than what the warrant specifies, if found can't be submissible as evidence. I think this guy could get off under self defense with a good lawyer, he was defending his home, and from what I read he has had alot of break in's to his home in the past.

[HODGIE 3]

I would be hard pressed to believe that the Police did not make it known that it was in fact the police

that just smashed the door down. A run of the mill B&E is not so forceful & loud if you want it to be successful.

Weather they were at the right home or found anything they were looking for is irreverent once he opened fire

on 4 cop's. No knock warrants are only issues in special circumstances in this case entering a suspected gun runners

home could prove to be dangerous in other circumstances and proved to be. Other reasons why this guy will not get

off is he shot the cops with a stolen illegal gun from SC. Even if they did not find what they were looking for that is a

Felony and will put him away for awhile. Along with the fact he is already a Felon since he is a sex offender put him in

the I am not allowed to own a firearm legally category so it will add another few years onto his term.

[tony357 386]

GoNRA, i was thinking the same thing, especialy if it was the wrong person they were looking for.

 

We will have to watch and see how this is played out..

[GoNRA 12]

News reported that they immideatly were fired upon entry, I dont know if they had time to announce they were the police. But if my house was robbed multiple times before that I would be skeptical and less hesitant than I normally would be. I'm not saying that what happened was right or wrong, im just saying how I suspect things will play out after everything is said and done. Did the police have a right to break into his house when there was no evidence found? did they have time to say "This is the police, we have a search warrant" before being shot at? These are questions the lawyer may be asking when the time comes for this to goto court.

[KpdPipes 388]

warrants from what i've learned are suppose to have exactly what is to be searched, what exactly your looking for, and strong proof that what you are looking for is in the residence before handing the affidavit to the judge. So far I dont see any mention that what they were looking for originally was found, all they found so far was a stolen revolver out of south carolina. I'm not 100% on this, but I think that anything other than what the warrant specifies, if found can't be submissible as evidence. I think this guy could get off under self defense with a good lawyer, he was defending his home, and from what I read he has had alot of break in's to his home in the past.

 

 

Sorry, but No.... that's like saying we do a search warrant for pot but have to ignore the dead hooker lying on the bed. the Warrant specifies WHERE in the location the search can take place. Since this guy was suspected of both firearms and narcotics, you would be able to check anywhere a reasonable person could surmise such items were stored. Even if your theory WAS correct..he FIRED That stolen gun on the police..Good evidence good case.

[GoNRA 12]

The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law. This may be considered an example of a prophylactic rule formulated by the judiciary in order to protect a constitutional right. However, in some circumstances at least, the exclusionary rule may also be considered to follow directly from the constitutional language, such as the Fifth Amendment's command that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" and that no person "shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

 

The exclusionary rule is designed to provide a remedy and disincentive, short of criminal prosecution, in response to prosecutors and police who illegally gather evidence in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments in the Bill of Rights, by conducting unreasonable searches and seizure or compelled self-incrimination. The exclusionary rule also applies to violations of the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to counsel.

 

This rule is occasionally referred to as a legal technicality because it allows defendants a defense that does not address whether the crime was actually committed. In this respect, it is similar to the explicit rule in the Fifth Amendment protecting people from double jeopardy.

 

The exclusionary rule judges the admissibility of evidence based on deontological ethics; that is, it is concerned with how evidence is acquired, rather than what the evidence proves. For this reason, in strict cases, when an illegal action is used by police/prosecution to gain any incriminating result, all evidence whose recovery stemmed from the illegal action

[KpdPipes 388]

The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law. This may be considered an example of a prophylactic rule formulated by the judiciary in order to protect a constitutional right. However, in some circumstances at least, the exclusionary rule may also be considered to follow directly from the constitutional language, such as the Fifth Amendment's command that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" and that no person "shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

 

The exclusionary rule is designed to provide a remedy and disincentive, short of criminal prosecution, in response to prosecutors and police who illegally gather evidence in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments in the Bill of Rights, by conducting unreasonable searches and seizure or compelled self-incrimination. The exclusionary rule also applies to violations of the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to counsel.

 

This rule is occasionally referred to as a legal technicality because it allows defendants a defense that does not address whether the crime was actually committed. In this respect, it is similar to the explicit rule in the Fifth Amendment protecting people from double jeopardy.

 

The exclusionary rule judges the admissibility of evidence based on deontological ethics; that is, it is concerned with how evidence is acquired, rather than what the evidence proves. For this reason, in strict cases, when an illegal action is used by police/prosecution to gain any incriminating result, all evidence whose recovery stemmed from the illegal action

[GoNRA 12]

+1 kpd