cops murder doctor in his own home

[Into the Night]

thank you for proving to me that you have no concept of the 4th Amendment. understand that this means you have zero protection from the government even in your own home.

Again, you show you have never read the 4th amendment. It does not discuss arrest.

 

[Into the Night]

mainstream media has been told there was a warrant, however, no warrant has ever been produced even after the shooting to show that the arrest was valid. you're falling for government lies, as usual, because you are a slave to government. I gave relevant case law, you gave law enforcement policy. they are not the same.

You quoted random rulings in an effort to call them 'law'. They are not. There is no such thing as 'case law'.
NO court has ANY authority to write law.

 

[Into the Night]

he was not fleeing arrest, moron. you can't flee arrest if you weren't already chased in to your home by cops.

Blatantly wrong. Your home will NOT PROTECT YOU from arrest.

Lanis was secure in his house at the time the cops came knocking. I gave you the relevant case law, you ignore it for your own cop sucking desires.

You can drop the sexual references. It doesn't help your argument at all.

 

[Into the Night]

again, if the cops had an arrest warrant, they would not have tried to coerce him outside. your belief about officer safety is invalid.

Yes they would. It's safer.

 

[Into the Night]

suspect was calm, INSIDE the house, and nowhere else to go. you're reaching for any excuse to avoid being wrong.

So what? Your home will NOT PROTECT YOU from arrest.

 

[Into the Night]

I see, you are most definitely a badge blowing slave. all you have are ad homs because you have no facts.

Buzzword fallacies. YAIF. Inversion fallacy. Go learn what 'fact' means.

 

[Into the Night]

the only exceptions to the 4th Amendment are exigent circumstances like hot pursuit. officer safety is not an exception to the 4th Amendment because no knock raids and swat search warrants are available.

Irrelevance fallacy. The 4th amendment does not discuss arrests.

 

[Into the Night]

no warrant exists because had there been one, the police would most certainly have posted it to the public to justify killing a citizen. you don't get that, though, because you believe police over citizens.

Warrants are not posted to the public. They don't have to be.

I support law enforcement. I support the people that enforce the law, whether it's a citizen, city cop, judge, jury, county cop, State police, or federal agent.

False dichotomy fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

again, it doesn't matter if the person actually committed the crime or not.

Police are not the judge or the jury.

the 4th Amendment still exists.

Irrelevance fallacy.

You're simply proving that you prefer government control over freedom.

Compositional error fallacy (bigotry).

A warrant IS necessary to enter the home.

A warrant is not required to conduct an arrest. Your home WILL NOT PROTECT you.

 

[Into the Night]

yawn


you have zero evidence of a lack of warrant

so you have two options

wait for facts

keep your head up your ignorant ass and debate with zero facts

He doesn't know 'fact' means. He seems to think it means 'Universal Truth'.

 

[Into the Night]

so police suspicion is higher status than the Constitution.

DON'T TRY TO HIDE BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION YOU ARE DENYING!

got it. don't ever engage in a Constitutional discussion with anyone again, since it's clear you have no clue about it.

I gave you the supreme court case on it, but I guess you hate them now, don't you?

THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT THE CONSTITUTION!

 

[Damocles]

So what? Your home will NOT PROTECT YOU from arrest.

If they have a warrant and justification to believe you are home they can even enter if you do not answer, but most sheriff's offices or police departments have policies to leave if nobody answers regardless.

You are correct, just staying at home cannot save you from arrest as the arrest warrant does allow them entry. Quick grok response time:

An arrest warrant provides specific authority here, but with important limits established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Payton v. New York (1980).

Entry into Your Own Home with an Arrest Warrant​

• If the arrest warrant is for you, and police have reason to believe you live at the address and are currently inside (e.g., your car is in the driveway, lights are on, or other indicators), the arrest warrant alone implicitly authorizes them to enter your home to execute it.
• This rule applies even if you do not answer the door.
• Police must typically follow the "knock-and-announce" rule (from Wilson v. Arkansas, 1995, and 18 U.S.C. § 3109 for federal officers): They must knock, identify themselves as police, state they have a warrant, and give you a reasonable time to answer (usually 10–30 seconds, depending on circumstances).
• If no one answers (or if you refuse entry), they can forcibly enter (e.g., break the door) after that reasonable wait, unless a judge has specifically authorized a no-knock entry on the warrant.

Does It Matter If the Warrant Is for a Felony or Misdemeanor?​

• No, not for the authority to enter your own home. The Payton rule (and related cases) treats arrest warrants the same whether the underlying offense is a felony or a misdemeanor (including bench warrants for failure to appear on traffic tickets or minor offenses).
• Police can enter your residence with just the arrest warrant in either case, as long as they reasonably believe you're home.
• The felony/misdemeanor distinction historically mattered more for warrantless arrests (police can often arrest for felonies in public without a warrant but not for most misdemeanors), but once an arrest warrant exists, the entry authority is the same.

Key Caveats​

• Third-party homes (e.g., a friend's or family member's house): An arrest warrant for you is not enough. Police need a separate search warrant to enter someone else's home, unless they have consent, exigent circumstances (like hot pursuit), or other exceptions (Steagald v. United States, 1981).
• Reason to believe you're inside: They can't just kick in the door on a hunch — there must be some objective basis (though courts give police leeway on this).
• State variations: Most states follow the federal constitutional rules above, but a few have minor differences or additional statutory protections.
• Evidence found during entry: If the entry is lawful, anything in plain view can typically be seized; a broader search usually requires a search warrant.

In short: Yes, if police have a valid arrest warrant for you and reasonably believe you're inside your own home, they can forcibly enter (after knocking and announcing, unless excused) even if you ignore the door — regardless of whether it's for a felony or misdemeanor. This is settled Fourth Amendment law.

 

[Into the Night]

It wasn't "suspicion." The police had a warrant for his arrest. They were serving said warrant. He could surrender, which he didn't. At that point, the police have a duty to forcibly take him into custody because they have a warrant for his arrest!

He resisted and continued to up the amount of resistance to arrest he was giving by pulling a gun. The police ended up shooting him when they couldn't retrain him physically or with less than lethal force.

A sad end to a stupid individual.

Don't try to threaten or use lethal weapons on a cop.

 

[Into the Night]

well, you first need to break out of your own idiocy about liberals and conservatives.......especially when you moronically don't bother to check the history of a poster. I'm not a liberal or a conservative. I am, however, a hater of all government overreach, especially when it comes to the lack of accountability of police. So, my question for you, in order for your so called survey to mean anything, is do you approve of every single law enforcement action? if so, why?

Mantra 40. Don't put words in people's mouths.

Police are accountable to the government they work for, and to the courts. They have to be able to justify their actions to a judge or jury.

Police have the right of self defense.
Police have the authority to conduct an arrest. Charges are filed with a court holding that jurisdiction.
Threatening police with a lethal weapon is itself a felony crime, and you could suffer severe damage or even death from it.

It is not 'government overreach' to enforce the law.

 

[Walt]

there are some 'exigent' circumstances that don't require a warrant. this particular situation was not one of them.

Hot pursuit. They had a warrant for his arrest, he had identified himself as being the person in the warrant, and then he had fled into his house. At that point they were allowed to pursue him. They could have even pursued him into another house.

We are dealing with a world where ICE agents throw hand grenades into random American citizens homes. Now that is unconstitutional.

do you not have the right to defend your home from unlawful invaders? or unlawful arrest???????

Do American citizens in Chicago have the right to shoot ICE agents who throw hand grenades into their homes?

They did not have a warrant

They had an arrest warrant. He identified himself as the person in the arrest warrant. Then he fled. They were allowed to pursue him.

THESE cops did not have a warrant.

They were serving an arrest warrant.

Lanis was secure in his house at the time the cops came knocking.

And he answered the door. Had he not answered the door, maybe they would have had to get a second warrant to enter the house. When he answered the door, and identified himself as the suspect in the warrant, they attempted to arrest him. He fled. That makes it fleeing arrest.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No, it doesn't. What were they supposed to do, just tackle the guy the second he opened the door? They tied to get his cooperation, he refused. Then dorks, like you, would be screaming about police brutality. They handled it just like they should. The problem was Landin.

The second the cops told Landin he was under arrest they had probable cause to enter a pursuit when Landin fled into the house. He had zero right to self-defense from police serving an arrest warrant on him. Your version of this is nothing short of delusional.

again, your bias pro government is noted, however, you refuse to acknowledge the reality of law enforcement and only your infantile belief in it has you thinking this crap. Reality dictates, as well as history, that if they had a warrant, they would not have bothered to coax him outside, they would have just grabbed him.

the dr NEVER fleed in to the house, he had been sleeping inside when the cops knocked on the door.

Again, payton vs. new york. read it.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

STY... You do understand that if you grab a gun, and then fight with the cops, they will not go to prison if you are shot, right? Even if you think it is murder. They asked him to step outside because he was being arrested. He responded by grabbing a gun and then fighting with the police at his door.

Now, I wouldn't have stepped out either. But I also would not have opened the door. I am under no obligation to answer the door.

Did nobody watch the body cam? His mistake was definitely opening the door. They asked him outside because it was the ONLY legal way to arrest him, since they did not have a warrant. It wasn't until the dumbass rookie grabbed him that resistance started. And the fight wasn't at the door, it was inside the living room of the house that the cops had no warrant to enter.

Now, the important part here shows how most of you have accepted the fact that the government has made you their slave, too afraid to fight for your rights. Generally, a cop will not end up in prison if they shoot you, even illegally, and you all accept that under the idiot premise that cops are mostly 'good'.

 

[volsrocks]

I have never said otherwise. THESE cops did not have a warrant. how hard is that for you morons to understand?

Link

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Sorry bud, you’re a libtard to me, full stop. Call yourself whatever bullshit you want, it’s a free country and I get to tag you exactly like I see you. That’s how it works, dumbass.

As for your 'question,' come up with a better one. Mine were obviously tongue-in-cheek, yours is so stupid I can’t tell if you’re serious or just that brain-dead. If you’re actually serious, answering it would be dumber than the question itself.

Step your game up if you want a real debate. I don’t waste time having grown-up conversations with third-graders who still eat glue. Try harder, you're definitely not 'smarter than anyone here.'

well, you're certainly entitled to be as big of an idiot as you want to be.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Okay. It is obvious you have never read the 4th amendment, which does not discuss arrests at all.

deflection. I never said it did. I said, very clearly, that the 4th Amendment provides security from the government if you're in your own home, with very few exceptions