cops murder doctor in his own home

[Diesel]

again, trusting mainstream media..............loser

"Mainstream media". Ok, I get it. You're not serious. You're not even sane. I actually feel bad for you. You don't even realize that you're sick.

 

[Diesel]

At least give STY some credit for finding a way to unify liberals and conservatives.
Post bat shit crazy nonsense that no one in their right mind would agree with.

He's clearly mentally ill, bored, and desperate for any attention - good or bad. It's so sad to see things like this and people like him.

 

[anonymoose]

again, trusting mainstream media..............loser

Since when was a local St. Louis tv news station considered ‘mainstream media’?
Wait, let me guess.They’re forced to report fake news by their corporate overlords who in turn is forced to lie by the government.

 

[Based Chad]

for those who are freedom impaired, is it incumbent upon the citizenry to follow government order without fail, to maintain freedom?????

you prefer Soros district attorneys.

you prefer the new world order.

 

[Based Chad]

well that's just historically incorrect. and given the case law I posted, did they really follow the rule of law?

well should just abandon the system and do what you want to do then.

both communists and libertarians seek to collapse the state so there's nothing to stop royals and bankers from assuming full control.



no thanks.

the state is here to protect the people from libertarian psychosis and banker cocksucking disease.

 

[Based Chad]

black block antifa tards = lifelong government employees.

so hilarious.

 

[Based Chad]

the legacy of ray epps.

a true hero.

 

[EdwinA]

Saw the vid.

Just another dumbass Darwin Award Winner, is all. Nothing to see here.

Hope the cops sue his estate and get a settlement for the trauma the moron caused them.

 

[EdwinA]

both communists and libertarians seek to collapse the state so there's nothing to stop royals and bankers from assuming full control.

^^^This.

 

[Walt]

jurist thinking caps on.....lets find out who's a statist, cop loving, slave, or who believes in freedom and the US Constitution

The man was arrested, and his response was the flee, and then pull a gun.

This is clearly an example of when having a gun is worse than not having a gun. Had he just surrendered when arrested, it would have gone best, but sometimes people feel a need to flee. Had he just fled, he would still be alive at least. But having the gun turned out to be the death sentence for him; luckily the police officers were not killed.

Let’s see. He was being arrested for harassing the family of his wife he was divorcing. Nothing wrong or out of the ordinary there.
Lanis resisted arrest. Never good but no reason to kill him.
He pulled a handgun on the cops while resisting arrest. Uh, this kinda changes everything.

Odd, I strongly agree with Anonymoose. He did not have much emotional intelligence, which would not have been the end of the world, if he did not have a gun.

they illegally invaded his home

Hot pursuit is a huge exception that allows entry onto any private property. He had identified himself, and was informed he was under arrest. At that point the police were allowed to follow him anywhere he fled. He entered his own house, they can follow. He goes into someone else's house, they can follow.

It would have been different, if he had refused to identify himself. He could have refused to identify himself, and even refused to answer the door. Some lawyers would advice you to do that. My non-lawyer advice is that you want the arrest to go as smoothly as possible. You want to fight it in the courts, not the street, so identify yourself, and go along with being arrested. Remain silent other than that.

and he was defending himself

There is no such thing as defending yourself from being arrested. The defense comes later in court. You cannot shoot police officers arresting you and call it self defense. If the police officers are trying to kill you, rather than arrest you, then maybe. But these police officers were clearly just trying to arrest him.

florida v. jardines the rookie cop reached inside his home, creating a 4th Amendment violation.....................would he not then be legally defending himself from a violent unlawful assault?

First off, they followed a fugitive into the house. That is clearly not a Fourth Amendment violation.

But let's say they did make a mistake, and violated the Fourth Amendment... You cannot murder police officers over a legal mistake. You can take them to court over it.

those police did not have an arrest warrant.

They had an arrest warrant. Let's say the arrest warrant should not have been issued. In that case, he still would not have had the right to murder police officers serving the warrant. The police to handle questions of a warrant are in the courts, not the streets.

What do you even hope to get out of murdering a police officer? There will always be more police officers coming. If you win in court, that is it. If you kill a police officer, you just postpone defeat for a few more minutes.

The verbal exchange of wanting to get Dr. Lanis to step out on the porch was to provide legal cover to arrest him.

Once he had identified himself, and been told he was under arrest, whether he was on his porch, or hiding in his basement, he would be arrested. They wanted to get him on his porch away from possible weapons in his house.

They are supposed to identify that they have an arrest warrant.

Why do you have that idea? The police do not have to describe their reasons for arresting someone before they arrest them. They do not need to give them any warning that they are under arrest. The reasons for the arrest are hashed out at the arraignment, not in the streets.

This was justifiable homicide not murder.

Odd, I am agreeing with FastLane also.

I was a bouncer, and I saw many people in their worst moment doing stupid things they would not do ordinarily. Lanis went through something that caused him to violate the restraining order against contacting his wife, and damage her car. Then when the police came to serve him an arrest warrant, he first chose to flee, and then to draw a gun. He might be a nice guy 99.99% of the time, but at that moment he was spiraling towards murdering a police officer.

 

[anonymoose]

Odd, I strongly agree with Anonymoose.

More like everybody disagrees with Smarter.

 

[Damocles]

The lesson here: Never open the door when they are doing a knock and talk.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The man was arrested, and his response was the flee, and then pull a gun.

This is clearly an example of when having a gun is worse than not having a gun. Had he just surrendered when arrested, it would have gone best, but sometimes people feel a need to flee. Had he just fled, he would still be alive at least. But having the gun turned out to be the death sentence for him; luckily the police officers were not killed.


Odd, I strongly agree with Anonymoose. He did not have much emotional intelligence, which would not have been the end of the world, if he did not have a gun.


Hot pursuit is a huge exception that allows entry onto any private property. He had identified himself, and was informed he was under arrest. At that point the police were allowed to follow him anywhere he fled. He entered his own house, they can follow. He goes into someone else's house, they can follow.

It would have been different, if he had refused to identify himself. He could have refused to identify himself, and even refused to answer the door. Some lawyers would advice you to do that. My non-lawyer advice is that you want the arrest to go as smoothly as possible. You want to fight it in the courts, not the street, so identify yourself, and go along with being arrested. Remain silent other than that.


There is no such thing as defending yourself from being arrested. The defense comes later in court. You cannot shoot police officers arresting you and call it self defense. If the police officers are trying to kill you, rather than arrest you, then maybe. But these police officers were clearly just trying to arrest him.


First off, they followed a fugitive into the house. That is clearly not a Fourth Amendment violation.

But let's say they did make a mistake, and violated the Fourth Amendment... You cannot murder police officers over a legal mistake. You can take them to court over it.


They had an arrest warrant. Let's say the arrest warrant should not have been issued. In that case, he still would not have had the right to murder police officers serving the warrant. The police to handle questions of a warrant are in the courts, not the streets.

What do you even hope to get out of murdering a police officer? There will always be more police officers coming. If you win in court, that is it. If you kill a police officer, you just postpone defeat for a few more minutes.


Once he had identified himself, and been told he was under arrest, whether he was on his porch, or hiding in his basement, he would be arrested. They wanted to get him on his porch away from possible weapons in his house.


Why do you have that idea? The police do not have to describe their reasons for arresting someone before they arrest them. They do not need to give them any warning that they are under arrest. The reasons for the arrest are hashed out at the arraignment, not in the streets.


Odd, I am agreeing with FastLane also.

I was a bouncer, and I saw many people in their worst moment doing stupid things they would not do ordinarily. Lanis went through something that caused him to violate the restraining order against contacting his wife, and damage her car. Then when the police came to serve him an arrest warrant, he first chose to flee, and then to draw a gun. He might be a nice guy 99.99% of the time, but at that moment he was spiraling towards murdering a police officer.

all of the above could have been simply stated as you believe in the ends justifying the means. They did not have an arrest warrant. If you actually had any law knowledge, you would have deduced that. everything after the illegal entry is just unconstitutional, but that's why we have the governments we have today, because most people dont' give a fuck about rights or the law, only that the government makes them feel safe.

 

[Walt]

They did not have an arrest warrant.

Actually, they did. Video of him vandalizing the car, along with harassing the family, was used to get an arrest warrant. The police then went to serve the arrest warrant. This happens millions of times a year. The police probably thought this was going to be an easy arrest, a doctor in a suburban neighborhood.

everything after the illegal entry is just unconstitutional

He should have not become a fugitive, and attempted to murder a police officer, and then he could have fought those points in court. If he had the ironclad case you claim, he would have done well in court. Even if he had no defense at all, he would have done better in court. He would have been let off with a warning, or maybe a few weeks of jail time at worst. Instead, he is dead.

 

[Walt]

The lesson here: Never open the door when they are doing a knock and talk.

They were serving an arrest warrant. Some would argue never identify and never open the door. This would have helped him avoid getting arrested on that day...

I would argue the opposite. If they are serving an arrest warrant, it is often smarter to just get arrested in the safest way possible. Arrest warrants do not go away. Usually, an arrest warrant means that there is no longer a statute of limitation.

This was the dream situation to be arrested. Everything was calm, and police were being polite. He turned it into the more chaotic situation that you do not want to get arrested in. Had he avoided arrest on that day, he could have ended up getting arrested in a more chaotic situation.

Going along with arrest does not mean talking to the police. When the police arrest you, tell them politely that you will not talk to them without a lawyer.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Actually, they did. Video of him vandalizing the car, along with harassing the family, was used to get an arrest warrant. The police then went to serve the arrest warrant. This happens millions of times a year. The police probably thought this was going to be an easy arrest, a doctor in a suburban neighborhood.


He should have not become a fugitive, and attempted to murder a police officer, and then he could have fought those points in court. If he had the ironclad case you claim, he would have done well in court. Even if he had no defense at all, he would have done better in court. He would have been let off with a warning, or maybe a few weeks of jail time at worst. Instead, he is dead.

no, they did not. modern policing and current jurist doctrine is that if police have a warrant, they do not need to wait for a subject to be outside the house. An actual arrest warrant allows them to enter the house upon opening the door. they did no do that which clearly shows they did not have a warrant.

I get it. you're ignorant and uneducated. You need government/media to tell you what to believe. anything else is abhorrent to your expectations of a benevolent government. that's too bad. congrats. You are a part of society's downfall

 

[SmarterthanYou]

He should have not become a fugitive, and attempted to murder a police officer, and then he could have fought those points in court. If he had the ironclad case you claim, he would have done well in court. Even if he had no defense at all, he would have done better in court. He would have been let off with a warning, or maybe a few weeks of jail time at worst. Instead, he is dead.

so, to clarify, your position is to let government do whatever it wants and let the courts (part of that government) sort it out..........you realize that this is part of why the founders rebelled, right?

 

[anonymoose]

they did not have a warrant.

Do you have the court documents verifying that claim?

 

[Grokmaster]

they illegally invaded his home and he was defending himself

No; responded to domestic violence complaint. Should they have waited until he killed someone?

 

[Walt]

so, to clarify, your position is to let government do whatever it wants and let the courts (part of that government) sort it out..........you realize that this is part of why the founders rebelled, right?

How did his rebellion of one turn out? If you are going to have a rebellion, it is probably better to organize the rebellion first.

He was clearly in the wrong. He should not have vandalized his ex-wife's family's car. He was filmed doing it. It is not worth rebelling against the government so one idiot can vandalize a car.

But if you disagree, then organize your rebellion. Do not do it piecemeal. Actually organize an army to overthrow the US Government, and write a new Constitution that gives an absolute right for any man to vandalize an ex-wife's family's car.