☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Hard Talk
Interviews
Nevada Family Sues After Police Reportedly Demand To Use Home As Stake Out And, When Refused, Bash I
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="spnadmin" data-source="post: 187222" data-attributes="member: 35"><p><span style="color: Blue"></span></p><p><span style="color: Blue">My question about shouldering the costs of lawsuits against the city were answered in Jonathan Turley's article below. There are no lawsuits because the citizens of Hendersen apparently have been willing to exchange protection of their constitutional rights with "dropping charges" even when the charges are outrageous. The Mitchell family seems made of sterner stuff. </span></p><p><span style="color: Blue"></span></p><p><span style="color: Blue">I have begun some light research on this issue, especially as it pertains to states of emergency and public exigencies. So far nothing has come up where a local government can make a declaration of any kind that would justify what is reported in the story. The claim of a "tactical advantage" by local police has not to date turned up as a satisfactory reason for taking over a private home by force for a stakeout in a domestic abuse case. </span></p><p><span style="color: Blue"></span></p><p><span style="color: Blue">There is an interesting legal doctrine - "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" - under which courts have argued that civil liberties can and must be revoked when the survival of the nation is threatened. The story in Hendersen surely does not rise to the level of a national threat. The courts will have to decide I suppose.</span></p><p><span style="color: Blue"></span></p><p><span style="color: Blue">Jonathan Turley's blog spot below describes the constitutional issues very well. He may be going over the top a bit on the Boston case, on both legal and practical grounds. On legal grounds the state attorney general may have deemed there was a regional threat and given the green light (though I am just guessing here). A state of emergency would be formally declared. On practical grounds most citizens would cooperate and leave their homes without protest, even if begrudgingly, especially if the police explained that they might be caught in a gun battle if a terrorist were found hiding on their premises. No matter what the legal grounds, the Boston case is different, because a single family was not singled out; and in the Hendersen NV case, the police knew that no criminal was being harboured or hiding on the Mitchell properties.</span> </p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Police Reportedly Demand To Use Home As Stake Out Despite Refusal of Family, Bash In Door, Shoot Homeowner with Pepperballs, and Arrest Him And His Father</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><a href="http://jonathanturley.org/2013/07/05/nevada-family-sues-after-police-reportedly-demand-to-use-home-as-stake-out-and-when-refused-bash-in-door-shoot-homeowner-with-pepperballs-and-arrest-him-and-his-father/" target="_blank">http://jonathanturley.org/2013/07/05/nevada-family-sues-after-police-reportedly-demand-to-use-home-as-stake-out-and-when-refused-bash-in-door-shoot-homeowner-with-pepperballs-and-arrest-him-and-his-father/</a></p><p></p><p><strong>Remember that whole business in the Third Amendment about not having quarter soldiers in private homes without the owner’s consent or that stuff in the Fifth Amendment about takings of property or that other stuff in the Fourth Amendment on unreasonable searches and seizures. It does not appear to apply to police in Henderson Nevada. The City of Henderson is being sued with its police chief Police Chief Jutta Chambers (left) as well as the City of North Las Vegas and its Police Chief Joseph Chronister (right) for a bizarre takeover of a home for a stakeout. Anthony Mitchell says that he was told that police needed to occupy his home to get a “tactical advantage” on the occupant of a neighboring house</strong>. When Mitchell refused, the police ultimately, according to his complaint, busted through his door, hit him with pepper *****, and put him into custody. The lawsuit also names Officers Garret Poiner, Ronald Feola, Ramona Walls, Angela Walker, and Christopher Worley.</p><p></p><p>Mitchell says that the ordeal began with a call from Officer Worley demanding access to his home. He refused to allow the police to do so and the call ended.</p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>The complaint states that Officer David Cawthorn laid out the following plan</strong> in a report: “It was determined to move to 367 Evening Side and attempt to contact Mitchell. If Mitchell answered the door he would be asked to leave. If he refused to leave he would be arrested for Obstructing a Police Officer. If Mitchell refused to answer the door, force entry would be made and Mitchell would be arrested.’” Ultimately, when Mitchell did not open the door, the police bashed it in, shot him with “pepperball” rounds, searched the house, and set up a lookout point in the house. He says that they then went to his father’s house, a few doors away, and made a similar “request.” They took the father to the Henderson police station, and when he tried to leave, they arrested him. When his wife Linda opened the door, they used the house as planned. <strong>Both Mitchell and his father were booked them for obstructing an officer.</strong></p><p></p><p>If these allegations are true, it is unclear why the police chiefs or the responsible prosecutors are still employed. Chief Chambers retired with a large buyout from the city.</p><p></p><p>All of the charges were later dismissed, a pattern we have seen in police abuse cases where victims are hit with charges and later offered pleas bargains or settlements. <strong>In this case, the charges were dropped but what prosecutor prepared the charges to begin with?</strong></p><p></p><p>What I find most troubling about this case is that it seems to be following a trend. After the Boston bombing, I wrote a column expressing concern over how the Boston police effectively searched every home in a huge area — forcing families into the street under some general claim of exigency. It turned out that the suspect was not in the area. <strong>Police seem to be using exigency or “tactical” claims to circumvent constitutional protections.</strong></p><p></p><p>I am eager to hear the response of these departments because, if true, these allegations constitute a chilling case of police abuse. If police can simply proclaim a “tactical” need as the basis for entering any home, the fourth amendment would become a purely discretionary rule. In my view, Mitchell had every right to refuse the use of his home. <strong>This was not some hot pursuit of a suspect or a need to protect officers from an imminent threat or harm. It was the forced occupation of a home </strong>— a poignant case to read on the Fourth of July weekend. We previously broke away from a guy named George who liked to do stuff like this.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="spnadmin, post: 187222, member: 35"] [COLOR="Blue"] My question about shouldering the costs of lawsuits against the city were answered in Jonathan Turley's article below. There are no lawsuits because the citizens of Hendersen apparently have been willing to exchange protection of their constitutional rights with "dropping charges" even when the charges are outrageous. The Mitchell family seems made of sterner stuff. I have begun some light research on this issue, especially as it pertains to states of emergency and public exigencies. So far nothing has come up where a local government can make a declaration of any kind that would justify what is reported in the story. The claim of a "tactical advantage" by local police has not to date turned up as a satisfactory reason for taking over a private home by force for a stakeout in a domestic abuse case. There is an interesting legal doctrine - "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" - under which courts have argued that civil liberties can and must be revoked when the survival of the nation is threatened. The story in Hendersen surely does not rise to the level of a national threat. The courts will have to decide I suppose. Jonathan Turley's blog spot below describes the constitutional issues very well. He may be going over the top a bit on the Boston case, on both legal and practical grounds. On legal grounds the state attorney general may have deemed there was a regional threat and given the green light (though I am just guessing here). A state of emergency would be formally declared. On practical grounds most citizens would cooperate and leave their homes without protest, even if begrudgingly, especially if the police explained that they might be caught in a gun battle if a terrorist were found hiding on their premises. No matter what the legal grounds, the Boston case is different, because a single family was not singled out; and in the Hendersen NV case, the police knew that no criminal was being harboured or hiding on the Mitchell properties.[/COLOR] [B]Police Reportedly Demand To Use Home As Stake Out Despite Refusal of Family, Bash In Door, Shoot Homeowner with Pepperballs, and Arrest Him And His Father [/B] [url]http://jonathanturley.org/2013/07/05/nevada-family-sues-after-police-reportedly-demand-to-use-home-as-stake-out-and-when-refused-bash-in-door-shoot-homeowner-with-pepperballs-and-arrest-him-and-his-father/[/url] [B]Remember that whole business in the Third Amendment about not having quarter soldiers in private homes without the owner’s consent or that stuff in the Fifth Amendment about takings of property or that other stuff in the Fourth Amendment on unreasonable searches and seizures. It does not appear to apply to police in Henderson Nevada. The City of Henderson is being sued with its police chief Police Chief Jutta Chambers (left) as well as the City of North Las Vegas and its Police Chief Joseph Chronister (right) for a bizarre takeover of a home for a stakeout. Anthony Mitchell says that he was told that police needed to occupy his home to get a “tactical advantage” on the occupant of a neighboring house[/B]. When Mitchell refused, the police ultimately, according to his complaint, busted through his door, hit him with pepper *****, and put him into custody. The lawsuit also names Officers Garret Poiner, Ronald Feola, Ramona Walls, Angela Walker, and Christopher Worley. Mitchell says that the ordeal began with a call from Officer Worley demanding access to his home. He refused to allow the police to do so and the call ended. [B] The complaint states that Officer David Cawthorn laid out the following plan[/B] in a report: “It was determined to move to 367 Evening Side and attempt to contact Mitchell. If Mitchell answered the door he would be asked to leave. If he refused to leave he would be arrested for Obstructing a Police Officer. If Mitchell refused to answer the door, force entry would be made and Mitchell would be arrested.’” Ultimately, when Mitchell did not open the door, the police bashed it in, shot him with “pepperball” rounds, searched the house, and set up a lookout point in the house. He says that they then went to his father’s house, a few doors away, and made a similar “request.” They took the father to the Henderson police station, and when he tried to leave, they arrested him. When his wife Linda opened the door, they used the house as planned. [B]Both Mitchell and his father were booked them for obstructing an officer.[/B] If these allegations are true, it is unclear why the police chiefs or the responsible prosecutors are still employed. Chief Chambers retired with a large buyout from the city. All of the charges were later dismissed, a pattern we have seen in police abuse cases where victims are hit with charges and later offered pleas bargains or settlements. [B]In this case, the charges were dropped but what prosecutor prepared the charges to begin with?[/B] What I find most troubling about this case is that it seems to be following a trend. After the Boston bombing, I wrote a column expressing concern over how the Boston police effectively searched every home in a huge area — forcing families into the street under some general claim of exigency. It turned out that the suspect was not in the area. [B]Police seem to be using exigency or “tactical” claims to circumvent constitutional protections.[/B] I am eager to hear the response of these departments because, if true, these allegations constitute a chilling case of police abuse. If police can simply proclaim a “tactical” need as the basis for entering any home, the fourth amendment would become a purely discretionary rule. In my view, Mitchell had every right to refuse the use of his home. [B]This was not some hot pursuit of a suspect or a need to protect officers from an imminent threat or harm. It was the forced occupation of a home [/B]— a poignant case to read on the Fourth of July weekend. We previously broke away from a guy named George who liked to do stuff like this. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Hard Talk
Interviews
Nevada Family Sues After Police Reportedly Demand To Use Home As Stake Out And, When Refused, Bash I
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top