Police Allegedly Invade Family’s Home to Use During SWAT Call

[Still_Small_Voice]

Remember the Third Amendment?

You know, the part of the U.S. Constitution that goes like this: “No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

Well, a Henderson, Nevada, family in a recent lawsuit claims that their Third Amendment rights were violated on July 10, 2011, when police officers commandeered their homes and arrested two family members for “obstruction.”

We will be discussing this story and all the day’s news on our live BlazeCast beginning at 2:00pm ET:

“Henderson police arrested a family for refusing to let officers use their homes as lookouts for a domestic violence investigation of their neighbors,” Reason explains.

The Las Vegas Review Journal provides details on the domestic violence situation police officers were dealing with on that blistering summer day:

Read more here:

Third Amendment Violated? Nev. Police Allegedly Invade Family’s Home to Use During SWAT Call, Arrest Two for ‘Obstruction’ When Owner Refuses | TheBlaze.com

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

Edited July 10, 2013 by pam

[LittleWyvern]

My "there's more to the story" senses are tingling.

*click*

Wow, those stock images. Who picks these?

[bytor2112]

My "there's more to the story" senses are tingling.

*click*

Wow, those stock images. Who picks these?

And do you have more to share? Or do you sense this because of a child like trust of all things government? Or is it the source of the story? Just curious....if there is more , as in something that discredits the claims in the story and other accounts found on the net...please post. I believe that there is always more to the story....but, candidly, we should all demand accountability when it comes to government and agencies of government local, state and federal....or we have no one to blame but ourselves as our freedom erodes.

As Eliot Spitzer's former madam puts it:

"Eliot Spitzer broke state and federal laws in his use of prostitutes and paid no penalty; I broke the law and paid my debt to society,” Davis said in a statement released Monday morning. “There cannot be two standards of justice, one for the average citizen and another for the political and social elite.”

Edited July 9, 2013 by bytor2112

[Just_A_Guy]

I hope the family sues. The officers' behavior, if true, was inexcusable.

That said, I think Beck is falling into a classical progressive trap by trying to bootstrap the Third Amendment into this. Not every wrong-headed (or even stupid or evil) government policy is unconstitutional per se just by virtue of the fact that I disagree with it.

Government has been able to commandeer real property of private citizens in times of emergency, for centuries. There's case law from post-1906 San Francisco Earthquake (I think) where the court upheld a city fire department's right to demolish privately-owned houses for the purpose of creating a fire break as the city burned around them. So from a constitutional case law standpoint, I think I'd be on weak ground arguing that my local police department can't put a sniper on my roof during a hostage situation next door.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[NeuroTypical]

Cops aren't soldiers. It was just as true then as it is now.

The family may or may not have a gripe, but they have no 3rd Amendment gripe.

I would have thought that if anyone understood that, Glenn Beck would...

[LittleWyvern]

And do you have more to share?

Not yet. All we have now is the lawsuit filing, some news stories from 2011, and theblaze's (hyped-up dramatic) retelling of the story. If this lawsuit goes anywhere we'll learn more, I guess.

Oh, and about the stock images? I don't know if I'm quite getting the message I'm supposed to out of these:

Maybe the symbolism is a bit too subtle and I'm not catching the purpose of the story.

Or do you sense this because of a child like trust of all things government?

Yo. Bytor. Real person behind these words on your screen. Don't forget that. Your quote up there? That's ridiculous. And I'm not a child or child-like (most of the time). Thanks.

Or is it the source of the story?

Well, theblaze does like to do these kind of dramatic retellings (for example).

Just curious....if there is more , as in something that discredits the claims in the story and other accounts found on the net...please post. I believe that there is always more to the story....but, candidly, we should all demand accountability when it comes to government and agencies of government local, state and federal....or we have no one to blame buy ourselves as our freedom erodes.

Well, sure, if everything happened exactly the way the Mitchell family said it did, I'd be demanding some sort of investigation. All I'm trying to do is say "mustn't be too hasty here."

[Just_A_Guy]

Incidentally, though: the militarization of local law enforcement generally and the widening use of midnight no-knock warrants and SWAT-tactics in non-life-threatening situations is, I think, a disturbing trend generally.

[beefche]

Am I the only one that laughed when this was read?

“The officers banged forcefully on the door and loudly commanded Anthony Mitchell to open the door to his residence,” the official complaint reads. “Surprised and perturbed, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell immediately called his mother (plaintiff Linda Mitchell) on the phone, exclaiming to her that the police were beating on his front door.”

The police are beating on my door, what should I do?!?! Call Mom.

[bytor2112]

Maybe the symbolism is a bit too subtle and I'm not catching the purpose of the story.

Maybe your not......

Yo. Bytor. Real person behind these words on your screen. Don't forget that. Your quote up there? That's ridiculous. And I'm not a child or child-like (most of the time). Thanks.

Yo. LW....I didn't accuse you of being a child or being child like....I simply asked if it was that type of trust for government that caused you to sense this. and it is not ridiculous..it may not apply to you, but it very much exists.

Well, theblaze does like to do these kind of dramatic retellings (for example).

So, it is the source. Just say so...I don't read the Blaze nor listen to Beck, but I would note that Huffington post has a similar tale to tell

Edited July 9, 2013 by bytor2112

[MorningStar]

Am I the only one that laughed when this was read?

The police are beating on my door, what should I do?!?! Call Mom.

Well, he couldn't really call 911 to complain the police were beating down his door. Maybe he wanted a witness?

[prisonchaplain]

It might be a good question for the courts to consider: Does the 3rd amendment protect home owners from this kind of commandeering of a home for what could become a dangerous, heavily armed, and protracted incident? Is it really such a stretch to ask this?

BTW, The Blaze probably got most of its info from the local paper: Henderson family sues police for breaking into their homes | Las Vegas Review-Journal

So, this is not just a Beck conspiracy thing.

As for why the police did this...I'm sure they believed they had the right and duty, and that citizens are required to comply with their commands in a law enforcement incident like this.

Edited July 9, 2013 by prisonchaplain

[Anddenex]

Policeman are soldiers. Soldiers represent any armed force that is hired by the people to protect land and liberty. Policeman are soldiers of our local government and federal government. They are a militant force, skilled and trained in combat scenarios to put down law breakers with extreme and deadly force if necessary. Utah, if I am remembering correctly, constructed a new building just for police training dealing with extreme circumstances.

The more relaxed we become with any of our amendments, the less freedom we will enjoy. Our, if you are a U.S. citizen, third amendment right was violated by these policeman. They, being apart of the "We the people" must hold themselves accountable for any violation of the constitution, sadly, this is not always the case (e.g. The young man DUI in Tennessee).

Yes, this family has a case and they should take it to court. Policeman, do not have the right to commondeer any home without permission of the owner, or without a warrant. Yet, at the same time, in some situations policeman definitely need our support. I do not know the whole circumstance regarding this family and their decision not to open their door, but I don't blame them either.

In our neighborhood, we once had a wanted criminal running from policeman, and the policeman were going from door to door trying to find this perp. They knocked on our door, politely asked if they could enter, my wife allowed them in (after they politely explained the circumstance) and then they thanked my wife for letting them check. My only beef, when the officer saw my guns in our closest, out of reach of small children, he looked at my oldest and said, "Don't worry those are toy guns." What? Don't tell my children "real" guns are toy guns...really? Doh!

[NeuroTypical]

Wow, Anddenex, I don't remember a post of yours that was ever so full of stuff that was just plain not true.

Policeman are soldiers.

No they're not.

Soldiers represent any armed force that is hired by the people to protect land and liberty.

You're ignoring a critical distinction. Soldiers are pointed at external threats, police are pointed at the citizenry. Different laws, rules, policies, methods govern each group. They are not the same, and saying they are is just ignoring reality.

Policeman are soldiers of our local government and federal government.

Say it as many different ways and times as you like, it doesn't make it true.

They are a militant force, skilled and trained in combat scenarios to put down law breakers with extreme and deadly force if necessary.

I love your use of the scary word 'militant', Anddenex. So synonymous with 'aggressive dangerous fanatic'. Honestly, I've found your posts to be more level-headed than this. How did such goofy sensationalistic notions find place in your otherwise rational brain?

The more relaxed we become with any of our amendments, the less freedom we will enjoy.

I agree, but again, changing the definition of words just so you can pretend things are what they're not, isn't the best way to go about protecting our freedom.

Our, if you are a U.S. citizen, third amendment right was violated by these policeman.

No it wasn't, and no they didn't. Because police aren't soldiers. Even if they were wearing scary militant looking protective equipment that scares people and makes for good scary stories.

They, being apart of the "We the people" must hold themselves accountable for any violation of the constitution,

In the quest to be appropriately righteously indignant, it's important to be talking about the correct amendment. Cops aren't soldiers.

Policeman, do not have the right to commondeer any home without permission of the owner, or without a warrant.

I'm thinking that's most likely true. If any amendment is being violated here, it's the Fourth.

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 no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Again, Glenn Beck, of all people, should already know this. I love his zeal and his mindset. I admire him for the stories he's broken, and the genuine threats to our constitution he's found. But for this story to show up on the Blaze, holding up the third amendment, well, he continues to be just a sensationalistic lightweight.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[prisonchaplain]

Again, Glenn Beck, of all people, should already know this. I love his zeal and his mindset. I admire him for the stories he's broken, and the genuine threats to our constitution he's found. But for this story to show up on the Blaze, holding up the third amendment, well, he continues to be just a sensationalistic lightweight.

Your point that police fight domestic threats, while soldiers fight foreign ones is valid. Nevertheless, the other comparisons are valid. It's not Glen Beck making this charge about the 3rd Amendment. His site just picked up the local news story. The family who's home was invaded is saying this, and it's their lawyer that's proceeding with the lawsuit. Given that the incident was from 2-years ago, and that the case is going forward, I'd humbly suggest that this is an issue worth serious consideration.

[LittleWyvern]

So, it is the source.

No, it's not just the source. I don't go "blah blah theblaze stupid rawr" and ignore the story. All I'm saying is theblaze likes to tell its stories in a certain kind of way in order to satisfy its target audience. Part of that process hypes up the scenario of some stories if they fit a trend or narrative. Therefore I'm taking this story with a couple extra grains of salt than what I usually do, in an effort to avoid making conclusions too quickly (I've already got facebook friends throwing around phrases like "American Gestapo," etc.).

[NeuroTypical]

Oh, absolutely it's a serious issue, worth serious consideration. It's just not a 3rd amendment issue, any more than it is an issue on how the Netherlands treat it's migrant Gypsy population.

Unless, of course, by "the Netherlands" we mean "Henderson, Nevada Police", and by "migrant Gypsy population" we mean "private citizens in their homes", and by "3rd amendment" we mean "4th amendment". Then it's absolutely a 3rd amendment issue.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Anddenex]

Wow, Anddenex, I don't remember a post of yours that was ever so full of stuff that was just plain not true.No they're not.

Thank you for your opinion LM.

You're ignoring a critical distinction. Soldiers are pointed at external threats, police are pointed at the citizenry. Different laws, rules, policies, methods govern each group. They are not the same, and saying they are is just ignoring reality.

I never said a military soldier is the same as a Police Soldier. I said they are soldiers. The difference of laws, rules, regulations, methods, etc... do not separate them from being soldiers.

Let's view the definition of a soldier LM:

1. One who serves in an army.

2. An enlisted person or a noncommissioned officer.

3. An active, loyal, or militant follower of an organization.

Yep, policeman would fall under an active, loyal, or militant follower of an organization. A soldier is an armed force that represents our government. It doesn't matter which direction they are pointed, external or internal. They are soldiers. Our military officers could easily be used by our government to combat an internal conflict.

Say it as many different ways and times as you like, it doesn't make it true.

It's true solely because it is true. Say it isn't so as many different ways and it won't make it true either.

I love your use of the scary word 'militant', Anddenex. So synonymous with 'aggressive dangerous fanatic'. Honestly, I've found your posts to be more level-headed than this. How did such goofy sensationalistic notions find place in your otherwise rational brain?

You mean the word that is found in our dictionaries "militant" -- yep, so scary, we better remove it from our dictionary.

Thank you for the insult LM. My brain is still rational, and it was a rational post. I am sorry you think to insult me in order to prove a point.

I agree, but again, changing the definition of words just so you can pretend things are what they're not, isn't the best way to go about protecting our freedom.

I didn't change any words. Soldiers are soldiers, policeman are soldiers.

No it wasn't, and no they didn't. Because police aren't soldiers. Even if they were wearing scary militant looking protective equipment that scares people and makes for good scary stories.

We disagree. Militant is a common word for military unit, or militia (oops another scary word in our constitution probably shouldn't use that word either).

It is thus your opinion they aren't soldiers. I am of the opinion they are soldiers because they are a "militant" force, trained, and represent our governmental organization.

I am honestly trying to figure out why the need to insult me because I call a policeman a soldier, and you disagree?

By the way, I am not a fanatic follower of Glenn. I don't watch his show. I enjoy some of his points, while others I find to be very extreme.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Anddenex

[Just_A_Guy]

I agree that the third amendment doesn't apply, but I can see Andenex's point.

It does seem just a little disingenuous for police departments to acquire armored personnel carriers and helicopters, equip their personnel with what is essentially combat gear (at least, to a layman's eyes), and carry out searches with more or less the same tactics used to storm Al Quaida safehouses in Pakistan (including flash grenades and teargas), but then protest that "we're not soldiers!!!" whenever someone questions their tactics on constitutional grounds.

At the risk of invoking good old Mr. Godwin--

--as far as I know, the Gestapo weren't technically "soldiers" either.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[prisonchaplain]

The 3rd Amendment angle may be a long-shot. However, in a post-9/11 society, where law enforcement is engaging in a kind of war on our soil--albeit mostly an intelligence effort--I wouldn't be surprised if some judge didn't see this as a constitutional matter. Prior to 1972 who woulda thunk abortion was a constitutional issue?

[NeuroTypical]

Anddenex, I did not mean to sound like I was insulting you. As I said, I've found most of your posts rational, and as I said, I'm a little taken aback that you hold this opinions. I find your particular opinion about this subject goofy and odd - otherwise I think you're a heck of a guy.

Whenever I find myself arguing the definition of words, and I find myself relying on the 3rd or later entry at dictionary.com, I'll often force myself to reevaluate my correctness. I'd urge you to do the same.

Other than invite you to read up on Posse Comitatus Act, the definition of Police, the differences between civil authority and military command, and Hamilton's Federalist Paper #19 (which discusses soldiers and police), all of which have formed the basis of my opinion, I guess there's nothing else I can do besides ask you for your sources.

Besides dictionary definition 3, is there any other reason you believe police are soldiers?

[Dravin]

Other than invite you to read up on Posse Comitatus Act, the definition of Police, the differences between civil authority and military command, and Hamilton's Federalist Paper #19 (which discusses soldiers and police), all of which have formed the basis of my opinion, I guess there's nothing else I can do besides ask you for your sources.

For the convenience of anyone wondering what Federalist Paper #19 says - The Avalon Project : The Federalist Papers

[Anddenex]

Anddenex, I did not mean to sound like I was insulting you. As I said, I've found most of your posts rational, and as I said, I'm a little taken aback that you hold this opinions. I find your particular opinion about this subject goofy and odd - otherwise I think you're a heck of a guy.

In the past, at least I will be able to say I can keep people guessing. :)

Other than invite you to read up on Posse Comitatus Act, the definition of Police, the differences between civil authority and military command, and Hamilton's Federalist Paper #19 (which discusses soldiers and police), all of which have formed the basis of my opinion, I guess there's nothing else I can do besides ask you for your sources.

Besides dictionary definition 3, is there any other reason you believe police are soldiers?

I, honestly, don't see any difference between a military soldier or a policeman. They both represent an armed force. I don't believe I have ever interpreted a soldier solely a "military soldier."

Police are an internal soldier, and our military is an external soldier. Gangs have soldiers, armed forces which support, protect, etc.. their organization.

[bytor2112]

No, it's not just the source. I don't go "blah blah theblaze stupid rawr" and ignore the story. All I'm saying is theblaze likes to tell its stories in a certain kind of way in order to satisfy its target audience. Part of that process hypes up the scenario of some stories if they fit a trend or narrative. Therefore I'm taking this story with a couple extra grains of salt than what I usually do, in an effort to avoid making conclusions too quickly (I've already got facebook friends throwing around phrases like "American Gestapo," etc.).

Unlike..Huffington Post, Salon,daily kos or NY Times...I guess. American Gestapo is catchy...my fav is still jack booted thugs though.