Black guy gets arrested in his house for doing nothing

[PrinceDaadi]

Police do believe they are the law because they are called law enforcement agencies. For the last few decade America was becoming a police state.

[TheGrumpyGeeljire]

Somalis in the U.S. should immigrate to Canada or the Uk. Shits messed up there.

Is life in Canada or the UK better?

free healthcare, free education and you don't get arrested in your house by a gun toting cop.

[Arabman]

free healthcare, free education and you don't get arrested in your house by a gun toting cop.

What's the downside? I mean, no place is perfect.

[Lillaahiya]

What you don't seem to understand is that I don't disagree with you, nor agree with you, but that I need more information. To you it's black and white because you "know" cops break rules and this is just another case that proves your previously held notions. Not to mention it is a white cop arresting a black man, again fitting into the narrative of systematic oppression of minorities. It may very well be the case, but hark my call of circumspection before coming to such conclussions, it would greatly aide your cause.

It is a black and white issue. I'm stating that this officer is breaching someone's rights and breaking laws which is clearly seen in the footage. Is his actions unique? No. I already stated that. I don't see how getting the "full story" negates the fact that the officer forcefully entered this man's home w/o a warrant, he didn't read him his miranda rights, he didn't disclose the reason for the arrest, nor did he properly identify himself. These are all excesses that can't be rationalized with or without a full account of the incident.

[SultanOrder]

Lilly I consider you to rewatch the video.

Here is the series of events as we can tell from the video:
-Police officer is trying to make an arrest
--He has his handcuffs in his hands
--The suspect is trying to prevent the officer to enter the house
-Police officer forces his way in
-Police officer eventually makes arrest with the assistance of backup

What does the Law say about a police officer trying to enter a house to make an arrest?

If a person is in public, including the open doorway of her house, and the officers engage in an attempt to arrest her, the officers are not required to stop at the door when the suspect retreats into the house. U.S. v. Santana, JUN76, USSC No. 75-19. It is considered a "hot pursuit."

As for the second issue, the issue of the Miranda rights not being spoken to the suspect, here is what the law says:

The Miranda rule applies to the use of testimonial evidence in criminal proceedings that is the product of custodial police interrogation. Miranda right to counsel and right to remain silent are derived from the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. Therefore, for Miranda to apply, six requirements must be fulfilled:

1. Evidence must have been gathered.
2. The evidence must be testimonial.
3. The evidence must have been obtained while the suspect was in custody.
4. The evidence must have been the product of interrogation.
5. The interrogation must have been conducted by state-agents.
6. The evidence must be offered by the state during a criminal prosecution.

The Miranda warning is part of a preventive criminal procedure rule that law enforcement is required to administer to protect an individual who is in custody and subject to direct questioning or its functional equivalent from a violation of his or her Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that the admission of an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect not informed of these rights violates the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Thus, if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial.

Police officers can issue the Miranda warning anytime the suspect is in their custody, or anytime before they interrogate the suspect in their custody. Now if the suspect in their custody self-incriminates themselves without being told of their rights (Miranda warning or some form of it) then that testimony can't be used against them.

My final point is this, we do not know from just the video what transpired before the video started. All we know is that a police officer is trying to make an arrest, and that person is resisting arrest. A police officer doesn't have to give you his name, his badge number, or any other information in the process of an arrest, he doesn't have to answer any of your questions during an arrest or even read to you your rights. As far as this video shows, the police officer has not broken any laws.

Now, going back to what I have been saying this whole time, we do not know if the police officer is justified in trying to make an arrest. We have to know what happened prior to the arrest. I hope you can understand where I am coming from.

[Lillaahiya]

All we know is that a police officer is trying to make an arrest, and that person is resisting arrest. A police officer doesn't have to give you his name, his badge number, or any other information in the process of an arrest, he doesn't have to answer any of your questions during an arrest or even read to you your rights. As far as this video shows, the police officer has not broken any laws.

[SultanOrder]