4 ms·

I wouldn't even call it inexcusable. The police are allowed to enter a private residence to prevent a person from harming themselves or others, and they had rec

I wouldn't even call it inexcusable. The police are allowed to enter a private residence to prevent a person from harming themselves or others, and they had received a report, which they had no reason to believe was untrue, stating that the guy was suicidal and had a gun.

libeclipse 10y ago
I agree that it's not solely the police's fault. The fault rather lies in the whole chain that led up to the events.
coldcode 10y ago
Once, maybe. The second time is the unconstitutional behavior and will result in the city paying millions of dollars.
- exclusiv 10y ago
  Which is sad because the public gets screwed by them twice.
  - mcguire 10y ago
    The nice thing about democracy is that you get the government you deserve.
tremon 10y ago
Did you read the article? Even assuming, without deciding, that the initial “sweep” of Corrigan’s home [was justified], the second top-to-bottom search by the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit (“EOD”) after the MPD had been on the scene for several hours was not. EOD officers cut open every zipped bag, dumped onto the floor the contents of every box and drawer, broke into locked boxes under the bed and in the closet, emptied shelves into piles in each room, and broke into locked boxes containing Corrigan’s three firearms. [..] the police had left the contents of his bureau drawers and shelves scattered on the floor, his electric stove had been left on, and the front door of his home was left unlocked.
mazelife 10y ago
Did you even read the article? They searched his home twice after he had already shown he wasn't a danger to himself or anyone else and wasn't inside the house. The second time they trashed the place. The whole point of the article is that the US Court of Appeals says the exact opposite of what you're asserting here: the searches were not reasonable. "Because it was (and is) clearly established that law enforcement officers must have an objectively reasonable basis for believing an exigency justifies a warrantless search of a home, and because no reasonable officer could have concluded such a basis existed for the second more intrusive search, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity across the board."
spinlock 10y ago
How would he have harmed himself or others after the police had his hands zip tied?
mikeash 10y ago
He left his home voluntarily and agreed to treatment. The police then broke into his residence after they had the supposed suicidal person in custody and ransacked the place. I wouldn't call it inexcusable, I'd simply call it criminal.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

libeclipse 10y ago

I agree that it's not solely the police's fault. The fault rather lies in the whole chain that led up to the events.

coldcode 10y ago

Once, maybe. The second time is the unconstitutional behavior and will result in the city paying millions of dollars.

exclusiv 10y ago
Which is sad because the public gets screwed by them twice.
- mcguire 10y ago
  The nice thing about democracy is that you get the government you deserve.

tremon 10y ago

Did you read the article? Even assuming, without deciding, that the initial “sweep” of Corrigan’s home [was justified], the second top-to-bottom search by the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit (“EOD”) after the MPD had been on the scene for several hours was not. EOD officers cut open every zipped bag, dumped onto the floor the contents of every box and drawer, broke into locked boxes under the bed and in the closet, emptied shelves into piles in each room, and broke into locked boxes containing Corrigan’s three firearms. [..] the police had left the contents of his bureau drawers and shelves scattered on the floor, his electric stove had been left on, and the front door of his home was left unlocked.

mazelife 10y ago

Did you even read the article? They searched his home twice after he had already shown he wasn't a danger to himself or anyone else and wasn't inside the house. The second time they trashed the place. The whole point of the article is that the US Court of Appeals says the exact opposite of what you're asserting here: the searches were not reasonable. "Because it was (and is) clearly established that law enforcement officers must have an objectively reasonable basis for believing an exigency justifies a warrantless search of a home, and because no reasonable officer could have concluded such a basis existed for the second more intrusive search, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity across the board."

spinlock 10y ago

How would he have harmed himself or others after the police had his hands zip tied?

mikeash 10y ago

He left his home voluntarily and agreed to treatment. The police then broke into his residence after they had the supposed suicidal person in custody and ransacked the place. I wouldn't call it inexcusable, I'd simply call it criminal.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]