Cops: "we’re gonna shoot and kill your dogs, ransack your house"

[phill4paul]

KANSAS CITY, Mo. – A Kansas City man says he’s been terrified since an encounter with police on Monday evening. He says officers came to his home in southeast Kansas City looking for people he’d never heard of and when he refused to let them inside, things turned ugly.

Eric Crinnian, a lawyer, heard a loud banging at his door Monday night, he was instantly alarmed since a neighbor’s house was robbed a few weeks ago, so he grabbed a crow-bar.

Crinnian said three police officers were outside his house.

“I open the door a little bit wider and he sees that I have something in my hand, so he pulls his gun, tells me to put down whatever I’ve got and then come out with my hands up, so I do,” Crinnian said.

They wanted to know where two guys were, and Crinnian later found out police believed they violated parole.

“I said, ‘I have no idea who you’re talking about I’ve never heard of these people before,’” he said.

To prove it, he said police asked to search his house, Crinnian refused multiple times. He said they needed a warrant.

Then he said one police officer started threatening him saying, “If we have to get a warrant, we’re going to come back when you’re not expecting it, we’re going to park in front of your house, where all your neighbors can see, we’re gonna bust in your door with a battering ram, we’re gonna shoot and kill your dogs, who are my family, and then we’re going to ransack your house looking for these people.”

“If that’s the case and those are the things that were said, I would think those would be inappropriate,” said John Hamilton.

John Hamilton is an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at Park University and former police officer. He said having a warrant is always the best way for police to search a home, and while the threats aren’t illegal, they might violate a department policy.

“I just think it’s a dangerous way to do policing, because it makes it tenuous when you appear in front of the court in a case like that,” Hamilton said.

Crinnian said he’s never had a problem with police before in his life, and he still has a great amount of respect for the Kansas City, Mo. Police Department. However, he also said he wants the situation investigated, so he filed an Office of Community Complaints Report.

A spokesman for the Kansas City, Mo. Police Department says he can’t discuss ongoing OCC reports and they are investigated internally.

http://fox4kc.com/2013/11/27/man-says-police-officer-threatened-to-kill-his-dogs/

Inappropriate? It's fucking CRIMINAL! But, hey, props and respect for a bunch of criminal douches.

[Christian Liberty]

I'd threaten them back. Shoot my dogs (Fact that I'd never have a dog aside) and I shoot you.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'd threaten them back. Shoot my dogs (Fact that I'd never have a dog aside) and I shoot you.

Sounds like a good way to get shot on the spot for threatening Officer Safety. :(

[Philhelm]

That's close to home...

[Origanalist]

Sounds like a good way to get shot on the spot for threatening Officer Safety. :(

Yep, don't talk about it.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Cops: "we’re gonna shoot and kill your dogs,ransack your house"

Truth-in-advertising laws should require that to be the official slogan for certain PDs.

[phill4paul]

It's called communicating a threat. Issued from someone that had already pulled their gun once. If he would have shot them dead on his porch I would vote acquittal.

[thoughtomator]

I'd say he's justified in taking whatever measures he feels are necessary to ensure his own safety and eliminate the threat to his life, family and home.

[Christian Liberty]

I'd say he's justified in taking whatever measures he feels are necessary to ensure his own safety and eliminate the threat to his life, family and home.

Absolutely. Hope he gets lucky and gets an ancap on his jury...

Come to think of it, are statists really the peers of anarcho-capitalists? I think any ancap who is charged with a crime should have to have 12 ancaps on his jury:)

[Christian Liberty]

It's called communicating a threat. Issued from someone that had already pulled their gun once. If he would have shot them dead on his porch I would vote acquittal.

Agreed.

[dannno]

At least the cop was honest.

[phill4paul]

At least the cop was honest.

+rep for making chicken salad out of chicken shit.

[Christian Liberty]

+rep for making chicken salad out of chicken shit.

Why do you hate chickens?;)

We are so screwed...

[phill4paul]

Why do you hate chickens?;)


Huh? I love chickens. They taste like kittens.

[Christian Liberty]

Huh? I love chickens. They taste like kittens.

You seriously insulted their droppings by comparing them to this;)

[Ender]

I'd say he's justified in taking whatever measures he feels are necessary to ensure his own safety and eliminate the threat to his life, family and home.

He's justified- but he may suffer daily harassments, like others who have questioned the local PTB.

[DamianTV]

I'd threaten them back. Shoot my dogs (Fact that I'd never have a dog aside) and I shoot you.

Its not what the Cops want, its exactly what The Powers That Be demand. All out War between Cops and Citizens.

[JK/SEA]

well, as long as their harrassing him, their not harrassing me...

:rolleyes:

[Pericles]

Presumes that there will be survivors capable of doing that, doesn't it?

[Anti Federalist]

Outside, it's AmeriKa.

[AFPVet]

Cops should not be allowed to get away with crimes. If mundanes made a threat like this, they would be charged with a class D felony.


IC 35-45-2-1 Version a
Intimidation
Note: This version of section amended by P.L.123-2013, SEC.3. See also following version of this section amended by P.L.158-2013, SEC.523, effective 7-1-2014.
Sec. 1. (a) A person who communicates a threat to another person, with the intent:
(1) that the other person engage in conduct against the other person's will;
(2) that the other person be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act; or
(3) of:
(A) causing:
(i) a dwelling, building, or other structure; or
(ii) a vehicle;
to be evacuated; or
(B) interfering with the occupancy of:
(i) a dwelling, building, or other structure; or
(ii) a vehicle;
commits intimidation, a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) However, the offense is a:
(1) Class D felony if:
(A) the threat is to commit a forcible felony;
(B) the person to whom the threat is communicated:
(i) is a law enforcement officer;
(ii) is a witness (or the spouse or child of a witness) in any pending criminal proceeding against the person making the threat;
(iii) is an employee of a school or school corporation;
(iv) is a community policing volunteer;
(v) is an employee of a court;
(vi) is an employee of a probation department;
(vii) is an employee of a community corrections program;
(viii) is an employee of a hospital, church, or religious organization; or
(ix) is a person that owns a building or structure that is open to the public or is an employee of the person;
and, except as provided in item (ii), the threat is communicated to the person because of the occupation, profession, employment status, or ownership status of the person as described in items (i) through (ix) or based on an act taken by the person within the scope of the occupation,

profession, employment status, or ownership status of the person;
(C) the person has a prior unrelated conviction for an offense under this section concerning the same victim; or
(D) the threat is communicated using property, including electronic equipment or systems, of a school corporation or other governmental entity; and
(2) Class C felony if:
(A) while committing it, the person draws or uses a deadly weapon; or
(B) the person to whom the threat is communicated:
(i) is a judge or bailiff of any court; or
(ii) is a prosecuting attorney or a deputy prosecuting attorney.
(c) "Communicates" includes posting a message electronically, including on a social networking web site (as defined in IC 35-42-4-12(d)).
(d) "Threat" means an expression, by words or action, of an intention to:
(1) unlawfully injure the person threatened or another person, or damage property;
(2) unlawfully subject a person to physical confinement or restraint;
(3) commit a crime;
(4) unlawfully withhold official action, or cause such withholding;
(5) unlawfully withhold testimony or information with respect to another person's legal claim or defense, except for a reasonable claim for witness fees or expenses;
(6) expose the person threatened to hatred, contempt, disgrace, or ridicule;
(7) falsely harm the credit or business reputation of the person threatened; or
(8) cause the evacuation of a dwelling, a building, another structure, or a vehicle.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.5. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.71; Acts 1981, P.L.300, SEC.3; P.L.183-1984, SEC.6; P.L.325-1985, SEC.1; P.L.242-1993, SEC.3; P.L.164-1993, SEC.12; P.L.1-1994, SEC.169; P.L.241-2001, SEC.3; P.L.175-2003, SEC.3; P.L.3-2006, SEC.2; P.L.123-2013, SEC.3.

[susano]

Its not what the Cops want, its exactly what The Powers That Be demand. All out War between Cops and Citizens.

Well, I wish it would hurry up and happen. That way the dogs killers could be hunted down and eliminated.

[mrsat_98]

+rep for making chicken salad out of chicken shit.


You seriously insulted their droppings by comparing them to this;)

You know that white stuff in chicken shit ? Its chicken shit to.