TMZ: Bodycam footage released from Jaxon Hayes arrest

[xAIRNESSx]

Should of listened to his buddy.

That's a good friend. He was doing what he could to keep Hayes out of trouble.

[Dominator83]

What a dumbass. Guess he's never heard of probable cause.

Yep, stupid ass rule applied in this case. Just follow the logic for one second here:

Woman in house apparently texts her friend saying she's in trouble, and can't call the authorities.
Friend then calls cops
Cops show up and have probable cause



So, the woman can text her friend but can't text 911? You know that 911 can be texted now, right? Been that way for over 5 years. She can text but can't call 911 (even without speaking into the phone, if you call 911 and aren't responsive they'll show up). I can't imagine how this can be abused for someone you don't like...for example:


A person I dislike has drugs in their house
They're having people over
I anonymously call or text 911 off a burner and say I heard screams for help from the house
Police now have probable cause and enter his home and find drugs and he goes to jail. Probable cause (made up) but they bust him for something they never would have busted him for without that anonymous made up tip.

See where I'm going with this? Slippery slope.

Well to be fair, I didn't know you can text 911. You just taught me something, lol.

But they HAVE to follow up on those things. If they don't and something happens, everybody would be screaming "why did they ignore the warnings??"

[leolozon]

What a dumbass. Guess he's never heard of probable cause.

Yep, stupid ass rule applied in this case. Just follow the logic for one second here:

Woman in house apparently texts her friend saying she's in trouble, and can't call the authorities.
Friend then calls cops
Cops show up and have probable cause



So, the woman can text her friend but can't text 911? You know that 911 can be texted now, right? Been that way for over 5 years. She can text but can't call 911 (even without speaking into the phone, if you call 911 and aren't responsive they'll show up). I can't imagine how this can be abused for someone you don't like...for example:


A person I dislike has drugs in their house
They're having people over
I anonymously call or text 911 off a burner and say I heard screams for help from the house
Police now have probable cause and enter his home and find drugs and he goes to jail. Probable cause (made up) but they bust him for something they never would have busted him for without that anonymous made up tip.

See where I'm going with this? Slippery slope.

What's your point? The positive of probable cause (protecting victims) is way bigger than the negative. If you don't want to be caught with drugs in your house, don't have it there.

Your argument is that someone doing something illegal could be caught... Not convincing.

[FinnTheHuman]

What a dumbass. Guess he's never heard of probable cause.

Yep, stupid ass rule applied in this case. Just follow the logic for one second here:

Woman in house apparently texts her friend saying she's in trouble, and can't call the authorities.
Friend then calls cops
Cops show up and have probable cause



So, the woman can text her friend but can't text 911? You know that 911 can be texted now, right? Been that way for over 5 years. She can text but can't call 911 (even without speaking into the phone, if you call 911 and aren't responsive they'll show up). I can't imagine how this can be abused for someone you don't like...for example:


A person I dislike has drugs in their house
They're having people over
I anonymously call or text 911 off a burner and say I heard screams for help from the house
Police now have probable cause and enter his home and find drugs and he goes to jail. Probable cause (made up) but they bust him for something they never would have busted him for without that anonymous made up tip.

See where I'm going with this? Slippery slope.

If you listen to the conversation, that same 1 and a half min conversation couldn't have been had in less than 6-7 minutes had that phone call been back and forth messaging. For the other stuff you said I don't know the exact laws but I'll make an educated guess that in your hypothetical the guy couldn't be charged for possession of drugs.

[FinnTheHuman]

What a dumbass. Guess he's never heard of probable cause.

Yep, stupid ass rule applied in this case. Just follow the logic for one second here:

Woman in house apparently texts her friend saying she's in trouble, and can't call the authorities.
Friend then calls cops
Cops show up and have probable cause



So, the woman can text her friend but can't text 911? You know that 911 can be texted now, right? Been that way for over 5 years. She can text but can't call 911 (even without speaking into the phone, if you call 911 and aren't responsive they'll show up). I can't imagine how this can be abused for someone you don't like...for example:


A person I dislike has drugs in their house
They're having people over
I anonymously call or text 911 off a burner and say I heard screams for help from the house
Police now have probable cause and enter his home and find drugs and he goes to jail. Probable cause (made up) but they bust him for something they never would have busted him for without that anonymous made up tip.

See where I'm going with this? Slippery slope.

What's your point? The positive of probable cause (protecting victims) is way bigger than the negative. If you don't want to be caught with drugs in your house, don't have it there.

Your argument is that someone doing something illegal could be caught... Not convincing.

Nope, you don't get the situation well enough then, there's a lot of room for abuse and people can frame other people all kinds of stuff, that's why it's a slippery slope. But as I said in my previous post, I'm making an educated guess that it's probably not possible to charge somebody with illegal activity not connected to the activity which triggered the police to enter the private property without a warrant.

[leolozon]

Yep, stupid ass rule applied in this case. Just follow the logic for one second here:

Woman in house apparently texts her friend saying she's in trouble, and can't call the authorities.
Friend then calls cops
Cops show up and have probable cause



So, the woman can text her friend but can't text 911? You know that 911 can be texted now, right? Been that way for over 5 years. She can text but can't call 911 (even without speaking into the phone, if you call 911 and aren't responsive they'll show up). I can't imagine how this can be abused for someone you don't like...for example:


A person I dislike has drugs in their house
They're having people over
I anonymously call or text 911 off a burner and say I heard screams for help from the house
Police now have probable cause and enter his home and find drugs and he goes to jail. Probable cause (made up) but they bust him for something they never would have busted him for without that anonymous made up tip.

See where I'm going with this? Slippery slope.

What's your point? The positive of probable cause (protecting victims) is way bigger than the negative. If you don't want to be caught with drugs in your house, don't have it there.

Your argument is that someone doing something illegal could be caught... Not convincing.

Nope, you don't get the situation well enough then, there's a lot of room for abuse and people can frame other people all kinds of stuff, that's why it's a slippery slope. But as I said in my previous post, I'm making an educated guess that it's probably not possible to charge somebody with illegal activity not connected to the activity which triggered the police to enter the private property without a warrant.

Everyting can be a slippery slope, I'm tired of hearing this as if it's an argument. If slippery slope was a good argument, there would be no rules at all.

[FinnTheHuman]

What's your point? The positive of probable cause (protecting victims) is way bigger than the negative. If you don't want to be caught with drugs in your house, don't have it there.

Your argument is that someone doing something illegal could be caught... Not convincing.

Nope, you don't get the situation well enough then, there's a lot of room for abuse and people can frame other people all kinds of stuff, that's why it's a slippery slope. But as I said in my previous post, I'm making an educated guess that it's probably not possible to charge somebody with illegal activity not connected to the activity which triggered the police to enter the private property without a warrant.

Everyting can be a slippery slope, I'm tired of hearing this as if it's an argument. If slippery slope was a good argument, there would be no rules at all.

I know where you're coming from, but this one is more problematic than your usual laws because it's so easy to frame somebody this way, and on top of that it discourages you from calling the cops if you're that girl and you have drugs in the house. Imagine if she did, because she's a user or a dealer, and then she doesn't wanna call the cops because of that, and then this guy kills her? Nah, you gotta make rules to protect a person from taking that risk of hoping that the violent partner is gonna calm down.

[AingesBurner]

Dude is going to jail, he was drunk and assaulted a cop. Hope it was worth it and you can get another contract in China or Europe.

[JimmyPlopper]

Cops need to de-escalate when they turn up to heated situations. That is their responsibility and one that we say neglected to do here. Lucky for them, they don't need to pay the price and you will have a part of the community who actually backs that behavior. Cowardice all around

[iserp]

What's your point? The positive of probable cause (protecting victims) is way bigger than the negative. If you don't want to be caught with drugs in your house, don't have it there.

Your argument is that someone doing something illegal could be caught... Not convincing.

Nope, you don't get the situation well enough then, there's a lot of room for abuse and people can frame other people all kinds of stuff, that's why it's a slippery slope. But as I said in my previous post, I'm making an educated guess that it's probably not possible to charge somebody with illegal activity not connected to the activity which triggered the police to enter the private property without a warrant.

Everyting can be a slippery slope, I'm tired of hearing this as if it's an argument. If slippery slope was a good argument, there would be no rules at all.

To be fair, when the police/justice system causes harm to innocent people that leads to a great deal of insecurity and civil disobedience, which would be more bad than good. That is part of the reason why everyone is innocent until proven otherwise, even if 'likely guilty' would get you 90% guilty people, those 10% innocent people that go into jail can turn the society against the authorities.

I am from Europe, and when I see news about the US police, it always shows a mistrust and disconnect between civil society and authorities that is not doing any good for your country. Obviously, being from elsewhere, I am not qualified to understand the problems of the US, but I wanted to give my 2 cents anyway.

[nikster]

Nope, you don't get the situation well enough then, there's a lot of room for abuse and people can frame other people all kinds of stuff, that's why it's a slippery slope. But as I said in my previous post, I'm making an educated guess that it's probably not possible to charge somebody with illegal activity not connected to the activity which triggered the police to enter the private property without a warrant.

Everyting can be a slippery slope, I'm tired of hearing this as if it's an argument. If slippery slope was a good argument, there would be no rules at all.

I know where you're coming from, but this one is more problematic than your usual laws because it's so easy to frame somebody this way, and on top of that it discourages you from calling the cops if you're that girl and you have drugs in the house. Imagine if she did, because she's a user or a dealer, and then she doesn't wanna call the cops because of that, and then this guy kills her? Nah, you gotta make rules to protect a person from taking that risk of hoping that the violent partner is gonna calm down.

but whats the alternative? The Victim calls 9/11, the abusive partner refuses to let police inside and police just go home for the abuse to continue?

[FinnTheHuman]

Everyting can be a slippery slope, I'm tired of hearing this as if it's an argument. If slippery slope was a good argument, there would be no rules at all.

I know where you're coming from, but this one is more problematic than your usual laws because it's so easy to frame somebody this way, and on top of that it discourages you from calling the cops if you're that girl and you have drugs in the house. Imagine if she did, because she's a user or a dealer, and then she doesn't wanna call the cops because of that, and then this guy kills her? Nah, you gotta make rules to protect a person from taking that risk of hoping that the violent partner is gonna calm down.

but whats the alternative? The Victim calls 9/11, the abusive partner refuses to let police inside and police just go home for the abuse to continue?

No, the alternative is police can enter, but there's a law prohibiting the state from persecuting you for anything illegal going on in the private property but the domestic violence. Which I like to believe is the actual case, just like when they find drugs in your trunk but they had no warrant to look at your trunk. But I don't know the law.

[alebaba]

I'm siding with the cops on this one.

[MrGoat]

No one looks good in that video. Hayes came off as a complete clown. The LAPD showed why they have a bad reputation, terrible job of de-escalation there.

[AingesBurner]

Cops need to de-escalate when they turn up to heated situations. That is their responsibility and one that we say neglected to do here. Lucky for them, they don't need to pay the price and you will have a part of the community who actually backs that behavior. Cowardice all around

Bro it sounds like you know what you are doing, go be a cop!

[nikster]

I know where you're coming from, but this one is more problematic than your usual laws because it's so easy to frame somebody this way, and on top of that it discourages you from calling the cops if you're that girl and you have drugs in the house. Imagine if she did, because she's a user or a dealer, and then she doesn't wanna call the cops because of that, and then this guy kills her? Nah, you gotta make rules to protect a person from taking that risk of hoping that the violent partner is gonna calm down.

but whats the alternative? The Victim calls 9/11, the abusive partner refuses to let police inside and police just go home for the abuse to continue?

No, the alternative is police can enter, but there's a law prohibiting the state from persecuting you for anything illegal going on in the private property but the domestic violence. Which I like to believe is the actual case, just like when they find drugs in your trunk but they had no warrant to look at your trunk. But I don't know the law.

oh i misunderstood. I agree, I know here in Ontario they have similar laws to protect people who call in drug overdoses

[AingesBurner]

No one looks good in that video. Hayes came off as a complete clown. The LAPD showed why they have a bad reputation, terrible job of de-escalation there.

Do you know how to de-escalate a drunk person with everything to lose? They tried de-escalating and his friend was at first trying to help as well.

[JimmyPlopper]

Cops need to de-escalate when they turn up to heated situations. That is their responsibility and one that we say neglected to do here. Lucky for them, they don't need to pay the price and you will have a part of the community who actually backs that behavior. Cowardice all around

Bro it sounds like you know what you are doing, go be a cop!

Wouldn't be a bad occupation for a level headed individual but its too late for me to change careers now. My cousin is a detective but was formerly a beat cop. I know what its about.

[pontius]

Hayes' friend looked like the only reasonable person involved in the situation.

[jazzed77]

Yep, stupid ass rule applied in this case. Just follow the logic for one second here:

Woman in house apparently texts her friend saying she's in trouble, and can't call the authorities.
Friend then calls cops
Cops show up and have probable cause



So, the woman can text her friend but can't text 911? You know that 911 can be texted now, right? Been that way for over 5 years. She can text but can't call 911 (even without speaking into the phone, if you call 911 and aren't responsive they'll show up). I can't imagine how this can be abused for someone you don't like...for example:


A person I dislike has drugs in their house
They're having people over
I anonymously call or text 911 off a burner and say I heard screams for help from the house
Police now have probable cause and enter his home and find drugs and he goes to jail. Probable cause (made up) but they bust him for something they never would have busted him for without that anonymous made up tip.

See where I'm going with this? Slippery slope.

What's your point? The positive of probable cause (protecting victims) is way bigger than the negative. If you don't want to be caught with drugs in your house, don't have it there.

Your argument is that someone doing something illegal could be caught... Not convincing.

Nope, you don't get the situation well enough then, there's a lot of room for abuse and people can frame other people all kinds of stuff, that's why it's a slippery slope. But as I said in my previous post, I'm making an educated guess that it's probably not possible to charge somebody with illegal activity not connected to the activity which triggered the police to enter the private property without a warrant.

Well I agree there's potential for abuse, situations like that are fairly rare. In regards to your hypothetical situation the person with the drugs would 100% be able to be charged for them. A warrant would be required for anything seized beyond the scope of plain view while they made sure there was no danger present.