The only difference between cops like this and home invasion robbers is the uniform.

They're lucky this guy was unprepared, and that they were not in Texas, which allows defense of a home with deadly force regardless of who it is holding the battering ram.

To me, the most important thing about this is that now, the Henderson police have abandoned the public as a source of cooperative operation. Beat the dog, he's not watching out for you any more.

This level of disregard for the law means that the corruption probably starts with the chief of police downward, and probably goes sideways into the prosecutors office.

This is a case where the state needs to come in and look at the whole local system.

I agree with Jim; at a minimum this calls for a state takeover of the police department, and an investigation by whatever Nevada's equivalent of the FBI is. There's also an open-and-shut civil rights case, if available evidence actually supports the complaint.

And yes, for the interesting-trivia aspect: it is my understanding that Third Amendment cases are extremely rare. I imagine it will hinge on whether a police officer is considered a "soldier" for this purpose.

I'm glad you posted this, Amy. I posted a link about it on your blog yesterday, but this definitely needed to be a blog entry.

Third Amendment violations are rare. In fact, the Third Amendment is virtually obsolete, according to a lawyer I spoke with. During the colonial period, British soldiers had the endearing habit of picking the choicest homes in any neighborhood, moving in without the owner's consent, taking the best beds, were fed, etc.

Hence the Third Amendment was created because we decided we didn't like the government doing this to us.

Those cops don't just need to be fired, and the city does not just need to be paying damages. Those cops belong in prison.

Government at all levels may be contemptuous of the First, Second, Third and Fourth Amendments but we know they love the Fifth!

The only difference between cops like this and home invasion robbers is the uniform.

Well, no. If you shoot and kill robbers, you'll be lauded. If you shoot the cops...not so much.

Patrick posted this yesterday, and my comment was prison was too good for these knuckleheads. Tar, feathers, some assembly required.

Also: rail, as in run them out of town on one.

So here's their rationale: "Due to a domestic violence investigation at a man's neighbors', the Henderson cops wanted a man to let them use his use to surveil the subject of their investigation..."

And here's their action: "Allegedly the cops came to the house, beat on the door, and when Mitchell did not open up, they bashed the door down with a battering ram. They aimed their guns at him, screamed at him, shot him with "pepperball" rounds, searched the house, moved his furniture..."

Did these pigs ever stop to worry about alerting the subject of their investigation? If I was a criminal up to no good, and the law suddenly barged in on my next door neighbor like Seal Team 6 hunting for bin Laden, I'd be inclined to lay low for a while.

I heard an interview with the author of a book (I believe this one A Charter of negative Liberties http://bookstore.westbowpress.com/Products/SKU-000587044/A-Charter-of-Negative-Liberties.aspx) yesterday and it was talking about why the constitution and amendments are written the way they are. It was prerecorded but was fairly recent. He sounded like a very intelligent guy with quite a bit of insight. I don't know how much the book deals with individual cases, the most recent one they talked about that I heard was Obamacare penalty issue & scotus's ruling.

During the colonial period, British soldiers had the endearing habit of picking the choicest homes in any neighborhood, moving in without the owner's consent, taking the best beds, were fed, etc.
_______________________

And because of all that, as a literary critic pointed out, in the folktale "Stone Stoup," the villagers weren't necessarily being "greedy" in hiding all their food - just practical, given the reputation of soldiers.

Not like regular soldiers...soldiers pay the owners for use and (likely) damage.

These are our heroes and protectors running amok.

The troubling part that I'm seeing is our police forces turning more and more military while our military forces turn more and more into police.

I have to agree with Martin on any use of the place as a spying post is completely gone now.

As to they aren't soldiers in a ime of war: I seem to remember several presidents declaring war on drugs, poverty, crime and possibly domestic violence but I'm not sure on the last two. If so war was declared with police being the 'soldiers' of it.

Not only is it true that the actions on the part of the cops alerted the suspect next door; but, there is a whole lot of irony in that the cops were looking for domestic violence - isn't "domestic violence" sort of what they did themselves?

What gets me so angry about all this is the mindset of the cops. What must they have been thinking?

"How DARE this man tell us we have NO RIGHT to use his home as we see fit? Why, we're the POLICE and we have the right to do any damned thing we PLEASE! We'll show that asshole that he has to do what WE SAY and that we have more right to his home than he does!"

I dont see why YOU are angry Patrick, the courts have allowed such behavior from cops for years, just as you like to point out the courts say you have no right to fly without the TSA fingering your asshole.

It's sad when the Cato Institute can create a "raid map" that has so many dots. And those are only the ones we know about.

But of course raiding and searching your house is separate from wanting to fly.

Something in the back of my mind says that there's a historical case involving a police car that parked in someone's driveway, without the owner's permission, in order to run a speed trap. IIRC the resulting tickets were thrown out. Anyone else remember this? I need to do some searching.