The citizens of Santa Clara should actually sue the Police Pension Fund to get the $7M back and/or the individual policemen that did the Kick Door In without a warrant for a minor child.
Yup, chief is endangering all his cops & every other cop out there. It's obvious why they burst in a door & injured a woman. Their chief covers for criminal behavior.
The chief defending their actions tells us that their actions are part of the culture and totally normal in his eyes. One instance on video, wonder how many more instances not recorded or not made public.
The chief is an old white guy. The victims are minorities. As much as conservatives want say that's using the race card and culture war, doesn't make it not true. That's just downplaying this atrocity which is defended by the government and paid for by taxpayers. We essentially pay to be terrorized.
The police chief should be dismissed instantly. Furthermore, he should be investigated. A person who would commit this type of crime once and show zero remorse has probably done it before.
Search warrants are for searching homes to look for evidence against you for a crime. They dont need a search warrant to enter your home if they arent going to search it. Duh.
If the insurance pays the settlement, then it should CANCEL them! I wonder how difficult it would be to get another insurer? Probably a little difficult after a jury awarded all that cash!! I wouldn’t cover those Tyrannical Bullies!!!
Crack heads like u say defund the police. Financially isn't the only way to defund police. Stop harassing the cops. Without them you'd be dead end of story. Without police you'd be dead
Take that money and leave get that money out of that state and others with money should allow that state to become slum state drive the price of ocean front property down to 20 dollars an acre
@100Above what are you talking about ? Lmao you know we live in the most expensive city in the united states the city has money trust me they're not worried about a little block revenue that's not nothing at all to them but legit a couple of cop cars, some drones , swat gear and so on 😂
They need to come out of their retirement funds. That way, ALL cops will have skin in the game, and it might make the so-called good ones a bit less tolerant of the thugs since it will cost them money.
Better ... out of that years salary budget for big departments. Over two to five years for smaller agencies. Court administered so there can't be any "creative accounting".
IMHO: In the case of Police Misconduct. Any settlement reached for misconduct, a percentage 10%-50% should come directly from the officers involved. NOT to be paid to the victim’s but to the city as reimbursement. ** remove your emotions & think logically here ** If the officer has to pay the victim they will declare bankruptcy & tie it up in the courts. Let the city pay it out & require the city to go after the officers involved. This way the victim gets paid in full as soon as possible & the city has the means to go after the officer/s. ❗️ALSO❗️ WE have to make sure that any monies raised from crowdfunding for these officers go to a fund for victims of Police Misconduct and NOT to the officers directly!..Think Manson Law etc. Currently most if not all police are covered by Qualified Immunity which must end!!! & the damn police unions as well. Now think of your situation!!! If you couldn’t get fired & were not personally financially responsible for your misconduct, what would your field of work look like!?? Why do you think MOST/NOT ALL gov departments suck!?? You have to be stupid if you think giving them more money is the answer!!! NO ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Holding them accountable is the answer JUST LIKE YOU & ME!!! Do you agree or disagree??? Why!?? (Finally: You ever hear Police & Gov say if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about!?? Then WHY are the police & gov soooooooo against oversight & accountability!???🤔
That chief has no business wearing a badge. They broke the law, they violated that woman's Constitutional rights, assaulted her, injured her. Those officers should be FIRED, and that chief should be fired if he won't resign.
Jeff Shoemaker, In my state if an ordinary person commits a home intrusion, I am entitled to assume that he is intending to use Deadly Force to kill me or my family. In my state, if you are trying to use Deadly Force to try to kill me, I GET TO KILL YOU BACK. And if the law enforcement tries to break into my home without a warrant, the they have no special powers or immunity. They are just like any other criminal trying to break in and kill me.
WRONG. The Chief ised right. As long as the cops were freshly following leads ofed evidence which haved been freshly discovered they cand go ined to anywhere, even to homes. Whened they do appeal that foolished settling ofed that case the cops will win. It ised a legal rule the US Supremed court has supported many many times before. I am only 15 and even I do know that law.
Imagine “settling” for 7 mil, then going on TV and trying to defend that. Man the people of that city should absolutely be afraid of those cops. Every. Single. One.
The reason the city settled is not because they broke her leg (though that is an aggravating factor). The reason they settled is because the cops entered the home illegally by not having a warrant. That's a federal civil right violation.
Eh wrong...didn't need one. Active pursuit began again when they ID'd her on public property...they didn't record that so had to settle because there is no "proof" of identifying her.
because the city's insurance company made a decision to avoid a legal fight for the sake of cost-benefit analysis and/or the city counsel made a decision about optics. The woman allegedly admits she tripped and fell in the full video. She was obstructing the arrest of her daughter, which is a crime, after she was identified as started a fire cUdong $350,000 in damage at her school.
we can get our car impounded and arrested for not having paperwork. Do the whole job or no job at all. If ya'll had a warrant we wouldn't be out 7mil. Nice going Duey!
No warranty. They didn't have to break that beautiful glass door. That was HER home. There had to be another way to resolve that issue w/o that bullshit going down. Police seem to think that violence with guns solves EVERYTHING. IT DOES NOT. THE 21ST CENTURY HAS BLOSSOMED INTO MUCH MORE THAN BLACK AND WHITE RULES ON PAPER. DIVERSE ISSUES AND PEOPLE REQUIRES A MORE DIVERSE TRAINING. MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES, DRUG CULTURES. OUR LAWS ARE OLD, AND METHODS ARE OUTDATED. NEW TIMES REQUIRE NEW TECH AND TRAINING. SEEMS LIKE LAW ENFORCEMENT WANNA BLAME KILLING PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY FEAR FOR THEIR LIVES. THEN IF YOUR INTELLIGENCE AND TRAINING CANT TEACH YOU TO TAZE INSTEAD OF TERRORIZING AND DOWN RIGHT KILLING. GET OUT OF IT. LET SOME NEW BLOOD INTO LAW ENFORCEMENT.
“They used minimal amount of force to break into her house without a warrant and caused an ankle break.” -what the chief meant to say. Also, even if she did trip herself and break her ankle it would not have happened if the cops were not breaking the law to get into her house without a warrant. Pretty disgusting.
No they dont, depending on the situation. Ill give you an example. Lets say the known criminal in the house was suspected of just shooting someone down the street in a store. The cops would be REQUIRED to enter the house to get them , providing they had reasonable suspsion the person was prestently in the house. There would be little information if additional people were in the house that could be victims, or potential victims. To pretend like real life is black and white would be foolish. While most of the time a warrent is arequired, there are extending cirumstances that allow cops to by pass that requirement in order to protect other citizens.@@randomdragononthestreet8943
@@ghostofreagan3181 the daughter was suspected of arson which is a felony. She had a felony warrant. If the police have reasonable suspicion that someone with a felony warrant is hiding within your house they do not need a search warrant. I'm not a cop or a lawyer, I work at a fucking factory and I know this shit. You have no excuse not to know the law
@@nocthemedic2951 Under non emergency circumstances can't a office enter your property. If they have reasonable grounds to suspect that you are hiding a suspect or conducting illegal activity in your home . They must obtain a warrant from a magistrate . Alright, listen to your own advice you dumb idiot.
There is no "entire story to be told Chief": You entered her house, broke her ankle. This woman won and cost us $7M. You still defending your police thugs?
@@777Skeptic exactly! no warrent fine use your hot pursuit bs, were you persuing mom? nope you were pursuing a 15 year old, so why is mom who is in her own home cuffed and being removed to another location? The answer no good reason they do this so violently her ankle breaks oh but she said it was an accident ok show me that footage, body cam was off $7 million dollars please.
Yup that's messed up the city should replace that chief with someone who actually does their job, if they keep this chief around their bound to lose millions more.
Worse! he's an enabler that allows officers under his command to knowingly violate the very laws they are payed to enforce. He needs to be investigated.
Don't hope, make it happen. Form groups, generate funds to fight police corruption and ineptitude. Make time in your life to be proactive. Hoping and wishing isn't going to make these problems vanish.
@@mdsuavejr if this case happened or didn't happen, the police department pays the same amount to the insurance. That's how insurance works. This 7 mil came entirely from a private company dude
When the police chief defends it and says the officers did nothing wrong, he's saying it will happen again. And why wouldn't it? - they believe they did nothing wrong.
After the George Floyd case, I've spent the last two days on RU-vid watching these kinds of videos. There are hundreds of them exposing police crimes. Any average person would be arrested for these crimes. Why aren't the police arrested?
And for that reason I support some of the rioting But they should focus on the specific cops that fucked up The entire riot group should focus on 1 bad cop at a time
The chief says that they cut the video short and didn't show the part where she said it was an accident. Well, from the looks of the video, I'd say it came from the cops bodycam so why doesn't he show the rest of the video.
The fact that the highest ranking cop in that city is backing that type of actions, PROVES that things will NOT get any better until WE THE PEOPLE stand against it.
What makes you think no exigent circumstances? Explain the entire encounter and case to me. You cant tell that from the smal clip that was shown in this news story. Its an assumption you are just jumping too without full context of the entire situation.
You right, sure they try to cover their butts after the fact, but the city saw that they had no leg to stand on. Momma won the lottery there. 99 times out of 100, the police get away with breaking the law, so that is what the settlement really reflects.
Thanks it does not matter you would still have to get a warrant to enter a premises under constitutional rights millionaires do the same move and we could not get them without warrants or articulated reasonable suspicion what's there was none
I think when you have been identified outside.. It is considered as a hot pursuit and not needing a warrant.. I am not 100% sure but I think I read this somewhere.
@@adrianlapaz5505 you have to see them commit a crime and flee at that time the crime that was being suspected was a week old so they kicked in the door for a week old crime with no warrant
@@JonnyQuest64 nope,they just assumed it..and all they had to do was stay there while someone gets a warrant..but they would rather do it the expensive way.
The officers used the “fresh or hot pursuit” exception for a crime allegedly committed a week earlier. Translation: police cost Santa Clara $7 mil ‘cause they broke the damn law!
The part that was left out should have been recorded by police body cams. They know they got caught dirty and are using the age old tactics of bullies everywhere and blame the victim
@@Jetsetfastfood I don't know if that's accurate but I am on the side of the police cheif. A warrant is not required to go inside a home to arrest someone, as long as there is reasonable suspision that the person is isn't. The fact that he lives there is all they need to bust down that door and make an arrest.
@@Moose300 When the police break down your door without following the legal protections we have as free citizens it's too late. At that point America is over.
@@Jetsetfastfood When you prevent police from entering your home to arrest someone for arson, you deserve to be arrested too. Please tell me how it's illegal for police to enter a home to arrest that kid when they know he's inside. An officer can arrest someone when they know where the suspect is. An arrest warrant can be issued to let any police officer that encounters that person that they should be placed under arrest, it is not needed to go into a house to make an arrest. A search warrant is often needed to go into a home, however that's just for searching a home. If the police arrested the kid and then searched his closest for evidence to what he did, that would be illegal without a warrant or reasonable suspision.
Chief is a scumbag. "She slipped." Yea, due to the force of the officers. That would not of even happened if they were to follow the law and not break into her house without a warrant.
@@nick22279 yea except they didn't have one lol, she just said at the end of the video how the cops tried to bend the law to get around that fact though. It cost the city 7 MIL and now the guys pissed cause he couldn't work the system in his favor. Everyone involved in this debacle should be fired for costing the tax payers so much god damn money. She's a teenager, she can't hide in her moms house forever.
@@nick22279 they didn't have an arrest warrant. They were on a case and they suspected her daughter. They need an arrest warrant if they suspect them and intend to take them in for questioning.
“After my officers cut their cameras, they told me she confessed to the whole thing being her fault so 🤨….” Yeah. Right. Also, grabbing someone and pulling them so that they trip and fall to the ground is another way of saying they were thrown to the ground, in my opinion.
If it happened when she was resisting arrest and protecting her daughter and not allowing entry to the housr while police had a warrant id say she was responsible for her own injury but with police not having kz she was within her rights to deny them entry and police officers are at fault so yep
Chief, you insurance company settled because your team was wrong and you were going to lose. Her leg would not have been broken but for the fact you officers entered her home without a warrant and put their hands on her.
Dude her leg is bent backwards ...are u kidding me?! They had no warrant, broke down her door, ripped her out of her home, clearly pushed her onto the ground!!! U can tell by the complete lack of concern for her leg being SNAPPED, that it wasn't just a freak accident. Some of these cops legit enjoy hurting ppl. I have been assaulted 3 times after nearly dying & needing their help....only to be falsely arrested to cover up their beating the crap out of me. State troopers are esp some of the worst. I never had any issues, not even a speeding ticket, until I moved upstate NY. In 5 yrs I had all 3 incidents & even got pulled over once for going THREE miles over the speed limit. Never call the police unless ur literally dying, always make sure u request EMT!!! & If they come to ur home, without a warrant, do NOT open the door. Make it seem like ur not home, hide all pets, esp dogs...& Ur children. There are some kind cops, but it's RARE.
A judge did that in Florida here , he revoked immunity from prosection and the court took his bank account his vehicles and his house to pay the victim back if that was done nation wide we would get our respect back and this would stop
Yes, that is the real question here, and by a reporter who knows the law well enough to follow up on the "hot pursuit" claim / criteria. Until and unless media actually hold officers and departments accountable, these kinds of claims will continue to go unchallenged except behind closed doors in an administrative office or, at best, in a courtroom somewhere that few pay attention to. Serious doubts about not following the law need to be addressed openly, in front of the public, so that they know exactly what is being done by someone in authority. The insurance companies know where things are likely to fall, and how much it is going to cost, if challenged. They don't just pay out millions because they can't think of anything better to do.
I think he was, they just chose to narrate that part instead. But I agree it would be more informative to the public for the chief to state his illogical position and try to defend a policy of raiding someone's house for a crime that's a week old because it makes the officers' jobs easier, regardless of the 4th amendment. The chief's defense of these policies should offend all citizens.
Fresh Pursuit. Pursuit (with or without a warrant) for the purpose of preventing the escape or effecting the arrest of any person who is suspected of committing, or having committed, a misdemeanor or felony. Fresh pursuit implies pursuit without unreasonable delay, but need not be immediate pursuit. straight from google, surprising no one's talking about how the mom tried to defend an arsonist, and supposedly said it was an accident before the video ended. Pick your battles guys
That does not look like minimal force. No one stopped. N $7 million says it all and no warrant is all just illegal. And the officer trying to justify that is just appalling. Nothing in this video that the cops did right
Thanks Ironhorse! I'm pretty sure that would break that blue line pretty quickly. It's easy enough to toe the line when costs nothing, but with skin (or cash) in the game that's a different story.
Old Gregg You are wronged. Hot pursuit ised a ecxeption and the supremed court does defined hot pursuit as freshly following ofed leads ofed evidenced continuously to the location ofed the bad guy too. And the age ofed the crime means nothing. It coulded be a bank robbery fromed 10 years ago and just they discovered evidenced toay which thened leded them to more evidence which leded to eventually the bad guy ined a continuous line. The important ofed parts are that they did finded fresh evidence they did not haved before and thened that evidence did lead them continuously alonged a trail to the bad guy. That ised evened taught ined laws school ined college. Exigent ofed circumstances are NOT required fore each case. Only that they did finded new evidence that led alonged a trail to the bad guy. I do supposed you could say it that there ised exigent circumstance that the bad guy cand get away ifed not grabbed right to then OR evidence could geted destroyed. Sinced we do not know it ifed there were being others evidence whiched could geted destroyed we cand not decide ond that. Only you cand go ond what does the supremed court says is OK fore doing.
Old Gregg You are titled to your ownd opinion but you are wrong. Ifed the evidenced does lead to others evidence ined a continuoused chain and that chain does to lead to suspected persons just that does maked a credibled line ofed evidenced. Ifed only they did find one singled clue yours opinion woulded to be right, but as I did to say, it doesed haved to be a continuoused line ofed evidences that does lead toa bad guy. My fosters father I do haved now was a sheriff fore very a long ofed time and his ined service schools legals updates ised what did I geted it fromed and I did too evened talked to the college guy that did teached it. He was a attorney and was too a FBI dude fore a while and then geted to be a teacher. And I amed not making laws, that ised interpreting ofed it and the supreme court did supported it. And at least I amed not a stucked uped jerked off and at ofed least I haved studyed laws. Just but I do guessed you must be a judge fore 50 years withed all yours perfect ofed armed chairs legals OPINIONED. I may ofed be 15 only but at least I haved takened timed to read abouted it. And judges are NOT impartials partys, totally impartiality ised IMPOSSIBLE, they are representations ofed a common ordinary intelligent citizen. And you thinked you know the laws? Huh. And THAT does come from a branch 1 circuit court judge too even. Oh and I writed as this because I geted the shit beat out ofed me by a vile fosters father and I geted a TBI. So now you do not haved to maked fun ofed me neither! Good bye.
It doesn't matter if it was an "accident". What matters is the "accident" wouldn't have happened if the police didn't become criminals and illegally break into her house. If they had a search warrant, then the lady might have let them in according to this. Having no warrants and breaking into the home is a crime, especially when the owner says no. It doesn't matter who the police think is inside. They have to have a warrant. So the insurance payout that the chief was upset about is the insurance company seeing no way out of paying. People need to understand their rights. Many times police don't and they break your rights all the time.
If this is 'minimal force', then I'd like to see what the chief thinks is excessive. When cops are found liable they should pay a portion of the settlement, not the taxpayers.
They should pay ALL the costs. As well as a prosecution for assault and battery with grievous bodily harm as well as armed home invasion. "Hot Pursuit" after a week? This is why the insurance company forked over the cash- it could have been more at a jury trial.
Bottom line is you have no authority to enter so everything after that is illegal. It’s sad when the leaders condone this type of behaviour. Look I was a cop for thirty five years. In a case like this a phone call to the parents to bring the daughter down to the office is the way to go. We called it, dial a pinch .
The police body cam “conveniently stopped” just prior to the woman saying it was an accident? The police video? Seems like the chief “conveniently created” an implausible defense.
That police chief cost his city millions of dollars and instead of admitting and dealing with the problem, he maintains that it's the fault of the woman, the jury, and an insurance company. In other words: it's everyone else's fault. Those officers, of course, will do the same thing again.
Your entirely correct! I’ve seen this behavior before! The complete denial of all that is so they can be right! Kind of reflects the United States of America?
The chief needs a lesson in Constitutional law. The 4th amendment was horrifically violated. Our founding fathers didn't want this kind of police state.
You know why? Because 50% of the population in the US would literally let them in and let them do whatever they want. Half the people dont know their rights or if they actually have any living on the US. It happens more times than it doesn't. Half of the times people get pulled over they incriminate themselves.
no warrant keeps them from entering but she could have answered the door and talked to them outside but when your knowingly hiding your criminal kid thats only reason she didn't answer door and know she gets rewarded wtf
cops don't need a warrant to ring the bell ans talk to you only to enter when she refused to answer the door now the cops have motive cuz know they know she's hiding a minor who's wanted if a child is in danger or they think a fugitive and a threat they have right to enter all.could have been avoided if she answered the door doesn't have to let them in but she should answer the door but harboring a fugitive is a crime ans she should be charged as well
Karan Kapoor Yes, I do. FIRST, the insured person or organization pays a premium based on predicted risk of payout. When large payouts-say $7 million-happen, the predicted future risk rises.....and right along go the premiums taxpayers foot.
@@Sneakydilbert - Are you even from America? Your post makes me doubt, for one. And two, the insurance would be either through the town or county. And that bill will increase taxes in that specific town or county because premiums will rise. Therefore, the citizens of said town or county will be paying those increased taxes. Do you get it now?
"the video is missing a crucial part". Yeah, the serving of a warrant! Just like robbing someone that results in death is then a murder, anything that happens after the police illegally entered her home is THEIR legal responsibility!
@@aussiepatriotprepper5206 They'd be serving bacon in hell. Oh, and she'd probably get convicted of murder, because the courts are practically coerced into supporting the police 90% of the time. When it's a choice between a police strike and one more innocent in prison, you know which the judge is gonna choose.
The lying thug Chief missed crucial points too, the fact that she was fine until the thugs showed up. He then lied about exigent circumstances. Fire the whole department.
How do you know he lied. I am inventing a situation because I don't know what happened now. But what if the suspect had been hard to find and they just saw her entering the home? My point is that you are making a lot of assumptions. The biggest of which is that the officer is lying. The Chief is also presumed innocent until proven guilty. All the Chief wants is for there to be a trial.
Anyone notice that an ambulance was not called till much later after her daughter was in custody im sure if an officer was hurt an ambulance would have been called immediately I think this is a fair judgement good for the mother
Apprehension of an arsonist would have been a job for the Kripo (criminal police), not the Gestapo (secret state police), but their methods would have been the same as the ones used by the Santa Clara police.
The chief says his officers were acting in 'good faith'. 'Good faith' is when you smash into people's home without a warrant, and brutalizing them in the process. The chief and his hooligan colleagues should be hanged.
"there's more to the story and they acted in good policy and law" No, no they didn't. They broke and entered a home because they DIDN'T HAVE A WARRANT.
@@PoshBubbles No, no they can't. They can enter WITH a warrant. That is the entire point of a warrant. She could have been suspected of setting off a nuke and it would still be illegal.
@@PoshBubbles You do not know the law as these offices didn't. Hence why she got almost $7M. Insurance companies don't pay when cops are doing what's right.
No he does not...the daughter committed a crime found guilty....the mother should have turned her "No Good Daughter" into the police b4 they come to her door....I HOPE THE POLICE FILE AGAINST GIVING A MOTHER WITH A CRIMINAL DAUGHTER 7 MILLION...for what committing a crime... LOL THATS FUNNY SHIT
@@doratiscareno5856 he most definitely does need to be fired because now the city is out 7 million because his cops dont know how to follow the law themselves. No warrant no enter. Now the criminal they were trying to stop got paid. Yea that's a good chief alright.
@@Hood.Housekeeping Do you NOT GET...HER DAUGHTER IS A CRIMINAL NON OF THIS WOULD OF HAPPEND....TURN YR DAUGHTER IN...THEY WOULD "HAVE NEVER HAD TO COME AND GET HER" SHE ADMITS IT WAS AN ACCIDENT WHEN SHE FELL ...PUT OUT THE WHOLE TAPE