First off, I'm going to speak on the fact that what this officer did was retarded. A dog gets out of his house(Because you're trying to get in) so you shoot at it? Really? That's his first instinct? Smh... There must be some new ingredient in these donuts because cops these days are simply trigger happy for no damn reason. Watch the officer claim the dog was reaching for his firearm. Lol.
You have a very skewed perspective of what happened.
The dog comes rushing out of the building and jumps up on an officer.
When you, formerly, posted a video claiming that police allowed a dog to kill a man - you recognize that an attack dog represents deadly force.
Thus, this dog is deadly force that just came charging out of a house and jumped on an officer. The employment of the firearm was justified under the scenario (so long as the officer can communicate this was his frame of mind - if the officer can't - then his use of force was illegal as he did not understand why he was using deadly force).
As for the other people in the area - it is difficult to see what was behind his target from our angle, but the impact with the ground was at such an angle as to not risk much from a ricochet or spalling shrapnel from the impact. Further - a loose attack dog represents a greater known threat than the chance incident of collateral damage from the employment of deadly force.
"But, Aim, it wasn't an attack dog lol."
We can only infer this after a few seconds of processing the dog's leap up onto the officer and then back down. A duration of time longer than the point at which the shot was taken - at which point, it becomes more evident that the dog's behavior is not that of an attacking animal - but an attention-seeking one.
Secondly I want to show this second clip:
These cops are just getting too power hungry, and donut hungry in general. This shit makes absolutely no sense.
To understand this - we have to look at a few things:
You must be registered for see links
"5) Warrantless searches, seizures, and arrests may be justified by "exigent" circumstances. To determine whether exigent circumstances justified police conduct, a court must review the totality of the circumstances, including the gravity of the underlying offense and whether the suspect was fleeing or trying to escape. However, the surrounding circumstances must be tantamount to an emergency. Shots fired, screams heard, or fire emanating from inside a building have all been considered sufficiently exigent to dispense with the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement."
A court would not uphold this scenario.
However:
You must be registered for see links
"Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[2]
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
—Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner[3]"
Notice that these officers never once use deadly force.
They gradually work their way in and have deliberately chosen officers of large stature to be able to 'relocate' people without meeting the qualifications for using deadly force.
Now - I am not saying that what they did is correct - it is not. They are clearly intending to stretch the laws and capitalize on the ignorance most people have of the law.
Notice their response (particularly once the cameras come out) - "We are pursuing a fleeing felon." These are legal terms.
The correct response from the women would have been: "Are you in hot pursuit?" If the officers state "yes" - then they have chosen to invoke the law. It is illegal for them to make false testimony in order to extend their authority. They are banking on the average citizen not knowing this or being able to articulate a case against their testimony.
An additional correct response would have been: "I am calling the police department to confirm your badge number and service." It is fully appropriate for an individual who is being challenged by another individual claiming to be an officer of the law to confirm the validity of that claim. After all - any random rapist can claim to be an undercover police officer and come up with a fake badge.
That contact to dispatch can also be used to inquire about a hot pursuit of a felon.
This is more to create an official audio record more so than anything else and to play dispatch testimony against officer testimony. Although I would argue they already shot their own argument in the foot by saying: "We were told he was here." That more or less argues against it being hot pursuit.
Ultimately - the physical reality is that they made the mistake of allowing the officer to get his foot in the door. There is only so much that laws can do to protect people from the act of over-reaching authority.
But, he is technically correct that, if he were in pursuit of a felon - he doesn't need a warrant.
I do, however, find the behavior of the girls suspect. They knew more about what was going on. The forced laughter and the mockery: "OMG I can't believe you think someone is here! LOL UR STUPID!"
Had they simply been more along the lines of: "You are looking for who? ... Okay, and who told you that they were here? Did you see this person come into my home - am I in danger? ... No? Then you need a warrant before I'll allow you into my home. You all can cook those up in five minutes. I appreciate your concern - but you have enough people to watch my windows for any fleeing felons, there" - they would have gotten a lot farther with the officers.
The fact is that officers -will- try to push their authority just as -any- human being (or group thereof) will do. They are given a job and are expected to produce results. The methods that produce results may capitalize upon a general ignorance of laws and rulings regarding those laws.
The scale moves on both sides.
Other than an invasion of privacy - the officers did not harm these women and did not search for anything but the alleged felon. I believe that they were truthfully looking for this person (but that they were not in hot pursuit and stretching the definition - if they were even aware of it... it's possible that they did not understand the limits of their authority, either) and that they meant these women no harm or injustice.
I do believe the women knew more than they were saying and that they were openly mocking and provoking the police. This was a game to them. They were mostly snotty and antagonistic toward the police.
That said - if the police come to my apartment looking for someone who they claim is a felon - our interests are diametrically opposed. They believe there is a felon in my apartment (for whatever reason) and I don't want people wandering around my apartment. Under a similar situation - if they police refused to produce a warrant, I might still comply with their request because they seem more than intent and capable of breaking down my door (which is more headache than I have time for) - but I would still document the exchange and file a case against them.
One must be very picky upon where to take a stand. In this case - the place to "stick to your guns" is in the courts. "Sticking to your guns," physically, can be necessary - but it comes with very high costs that need to be weighed carefully before choosing that action.
