Law KyrieAnna Liles back in Court tomo. #FreeKiwi

[RoastBeast]

I don't think she attempted to run the cop over but her actions could have easily caused her to run the cop over. He ran in front of her car because she was backing out of the driveway and he didn't expect her to slam it into drive. It really doesn't matter what the department policy is about getting in front of a vehicle. If an officer is in front of your vehicle and you attempt to run him over, the criminality of that is not negated because of his department's policy. She was in the wrong there at nearly every step.

The encounter with the witnesses after that makes me a lot more angry than the encounter with the lady playing Vanishing Point with her Challenger.

 

[Joshuaace]

Well we're making progress.

It's gone from 'she did literally nothing!!1!' To 'yeah she tried to run a cop over with her car, but he didn't have to be a dick about it.'

Bud, you read "if she did", and twisted that in to "she tried to run a cop over." The progress you need to make is in reading comprehension. Meaningful discussion is welcomed though, if you want to read up a bit

It really doesn't matter what the department policy is about getting in front of a vehicle.

Does their policy on investigative detentions matter? Does their use of force policy matter? What about POST and Penal Code, do they matter?

 

[RoastBeast]

Bud, you read "if she did", and twisted that in to "she tried to run a cop over." The progress you need to make is in reading comprehension. Meaningful discussion is welcomed though, if you want to read up a bit



Does their policy on investigative detentions matter? Does their use of force policy matter? What about POST and Penal Code, do they matter?

Are you purposely being obtuse here? Surely you know what I meant by my comment. Department policy does not negate state law. You can't just run someone over and be innocent of running someone over if their job has a policy stating they shouldn't be in front of a car. That can get you potentially fired from the job for ignoring policy but it does not make what she did any less illegal.

 

[Joshuaace]

Are you purposely being obtuse here? Surely you know what I meant by my comment. Department policy does not negate state law. You can't just run someone over and be innocent of running someone over if their job has a policy stating they shouldn't be in front of a car. That can get you potentially fired from the job for ignoring policy but it does not make what she did any less illegal.

She never even started that vehicle until 2 grown men dressed in dark clothes seized her by the arm. Unless she had already committed a crime at that point and was being lawfully arrested; then she has every right to defend herself from an unlawful seizure of her person. Since the only crime she is charged with happened AFTER they put their hands on her, then we can reasonably conclude that they didn't have PC at that point.

Identifying as a police officer is a requirement to make a 'Terry' stop. Identifying is a requirement prior to make a lawful arrest. Identifying is a requirement before using lethal force. Did you hear them identify even 1 time?

 

[RoastBeast]

She never even started that vehicle until 2 grown men dressed in dark clothes seized her by the arm. Unless she had already committed a crime at that point and was being lawfully arrested; then she has every right to defend herself from an unlawful seizure of her person. Since the only crime she is charged with happened AFTER they put their hands on her, then we can reasonably conclude that they didn't have PC at that point.

Identifying as a police officer is a requirement to make a 'Terry' stop. Identifying is a requirement prior to make a lawful arrest. Identifying is a requirement before using lethal force. Did you hear them identify even 1 time?

Look I'm just saying that no one here was right from beginning to end. Everyone made errors. I'm not fully pro cop and I'm not pro perp either. Just call it the way I see it. Mistakes were made by everyone and a potentially life ending situation could have occurred. Everyone is responsible in different ways here other than the witnesses that got accosted in their vehicle after the fact.

 

[oldshadow]

She was armed with a deadly weapon trespassing.

I'll have to look back at the state this happened in. However in any sane state a homeowner will have been justified to confront her and use deadly force.

Again she was trespassing with a deadly weapon which is a clear reason to stop and detain her. Even if she had no weapon the acting crazy and trespassing would be a valid reason to stop detain and question her.

The shooting looks legal in that she was a danger to the cop and the public.

She knew they were cops there is no question about it.

It appears it was California so any home owner that defend themselves from a criminal with a deadly weapon would be in a hell of a lot more trouble then the criminal even if the criminal stabbed them.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

they need to practice their marksmanship more.

 

[Joshuaace]

She was armed with a deadly weapon trespassing.

So just ignore the Officers concluding their was no trespassing? Just ignore that they concluded that there was no 417 (criminal brandishing of a firearm). Just ignore the Officers own words?

I'll have to look back at the state this happened in. However in any sane state a homeowner will have been justified to confront her and use deadly force.

Strawman. These homeowners say with their own mouths that Ms. Liles did not threaten them.

Again she was trespassing with a deadly weapon which is a clear reason to stop and detain her. Even if she had no weapon the acting crazy and trespassing would be a valid reason to stop detain and question her.

I don't think you understand what a valid Terry stop is. I think the authority, scope, and limitations of an investigative detention are beyond you.

The shooting looks legal in that she was a danger to the cop and the public.

You whacko, the bullets flying around is the danger to the public. Their were bullets recovered from multiple houses. They didn't write her any traffic tickets. She was even using her turn signals. lol

She knew they were cops there is no question about it.

Why do you say? They didn't identify. There isn't a cruiser in sight. No flashing lights from a cruiser. It's his duty to identify, he didn't. He didn't identify to the Explorer either. Pattern established.

 

[oldshadow]

So just ignore the Officers concluding their was no trespassing? Just ignore that they concluded that there was no 417 (criminal brandishing of a firearm). Just ignore the Officers own words?


Strawman. These homeowners say with their own mouths that Ms. Liles did not threaten them.


I don't think you understand what a valid Terry stop is. I think the authority, scope, and limitations of an investigative detention are beyond you.


You whacko, the bullets flying around is the danger to the public. Their were bullets recovered from multiple houses. They didn't write her any traffic tickets. She was even using her turn signals. lol


Why do you say? They didn't identify. There isn't a cruiser in sight. No flashing lights from a cruiser. It's his duty to identify, he didn't. He didn't identify to the Explorer either. Pattern established.

The deadly weapon was the knife. She was running around people's yard with a knife in her hand. They had every right to stop her to investigate her actions. Not questioning a person running around with a knife in their hand going into people's yards would have been not doing there job. Her actions show and response show she knew they were cop. Her eradicate behavior showed she was a danger to the public. Then her behavior when the police tried to question her by using her vehicle as a weapon to escape detention for investigation her her behavior shoes her danger to the police there and the public in general.

 

[Joshuaace]

They had every right to stop her to investigate her actions.

They did right up until she ended the consensual encounter by closing her car door.

Do you understand the protections against self incrimination provided by the 5th Amendment? You do recognize that she has no duty to cooperate with a criminal investigation in to her actions? When she closed that door, the Cops had 2 options. 1) walk away, 2) arrest her. But of course per their own words they lacked PC. 9th grade Civics 'bro

#FreeKiwi

 

[Poon Goon]

So what happened in court today?

 

[oldshadow]

They did right up until she ended the consensual encounter by closing her car door.

Do you understand the protections against self incrimination provided by the 5th Amendment? You do recognize that she has no duty to cooperate with a criminal investigation in to her actions? When she closed that door, the Cops had 2 options. 1) walk away, 2) arrest her. But of course per their own words they lacked PC. 9th grade Civics 'bro

#FreeKiwi

They can detain you on site while they are investigating.

You ask "am I free to go" they answer yes or no. The correct answer when it's no is you are not under arrest but being detained for an investigation. They have a reasonable time to conduct an on site investigation and hold you. During that time if you run or try to drive over them to get away they have a right to use to then arrest you for that.

10 grade civics bro

Also they can ask her to step out of the vehicle for officer safety especially since she was know to be armed.

She has no duty to answer any questions. All she has to do is physically cooperate physically for officer safety and just keep asking is she free to go.

 

[Joshuaace]

So what happened in court today?

I think she is still in jail awaiting Trial based off the press release that @kyrieannas_mawm forwarded to me.

"Liles, in custody over 90 days, awaits trial for alleged Assault GBI on an officer in the line of duty. The next hearing is scheduled for March 18 at 1:35 pm PST, in Dept. 63."

The Mods should let her post, she has some unbelievable stuff.

The search warrant was for all KyrieAnna's electronics, her security footage, and street drugs. It's a sealed warrant signed by this Judge.
https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/72994

 

[koquerelle]

Sealed warrant:
Under s. 487.3(1), an application to seal a warrant and ITO (information to obtain) can be made prohibiting disclosure of any information related to the warrant on the basis that access to it would subvert the ends of justice or the information would be put to an improper purpose.

(in case I'm not the only one who didn't know what it was)

 

[Joshuaace]

Sealed warrant:
Under s. 487.3(1), an application to seal a warrant and ITO (information to obtain) can be made prohibiting disclosure of any information related to the warrant on the basis that access to it would subvert the ends of justice or the information would be put to an improper purpose.

(in case I'm not the only one who didn't know what it was)

Thanks!

The specific reason marked for sealing the warrant is "evidence destruction or tampering." The Judge that signed the warrant Mawm sent to me has been inactive since 2008, retired in 2010, and became ineligible to practice law in California in 2016. That alone may be the real reason they sought to seal the warrant.

From the outset, I was flabbergasted about what authorized the search for the knives......it appears corruption is what authorized that search.

Certainly, the white powder, green leafy, old iphone, tablet, laptop, and security footage, are not evidence of assaulting someone with her car. Definitely some nefarious stuff going on here.

 

[oldshadow]

Thanks!

The specific reason marked for sealing the warrant is "evidence destruction or tampering." The Judge that signed the warrant Mawm sent to me has been inactive since 2008, retired in 2010, and became ineligible to practice law in California in 2016. That alone may be the real reason they sought to seal the warrant.

From the outset, I was flabbergasted about what authorized the search for the knives......it appears corruption is what authorized that search.

Certainly, the white powder, green leafy, old iphone, tablet, laptop, and security footage, are not evidence of assaulting someone with her car. Definitely some nefarious stuff going on here.

Not sure about the judge and him signing off on the warrant. Unless he is part time after retirement or something.

Was it to search her home or just the vehicle.

If it was just the vehicle then if they found evidence of other criminal activity that could expand the it to other things in the vehicle and or her home.

You would need to see the paperwork to have any idea.

 

[Joshuaace]

Not sure about the judge and him signing off on the warrant. Unless he is part time after retirement or something.

Temporary Judges in California are required to still be active members of the California Bar. Judge Jane Ure is not, per the Cali Bar assoc.

Was it to search her home or just the vehicle.

She was arrested driving the vehicle. Her and the vehicle can be searched incident to arrest. The scope of that type of search is not limited to evidence associated with the crime charged.

So yes, obviously it was her home. And the items seized had dick to do with the charges filed. A search warrant requires the specific places to be searched, and specific items to be seized to by the warrant.

You would need to see the paperwork to have any idea.

It's sealed to the public, that kind of causes an issue when it comes to Citizen review. But I have in fact seen pics of the warrant taken at the residence, by the residents, and forwarded to me by the girls Mom.

 

[oldshadow]

Temporary Judges in California are required to still be active members of the California Bar. Judge Jane Ure is not, per the Cali Bar assoc.




She was arrested driving the vehicle. Her and the vehicle can be searched incident to arrest. The scope of that type of search is not limited to evidence associated with the crime charged.

So yes, obviously it was her home. And the items seized had dick to do with the charges filed. A search warrant requires the specific places to be searched, and specific items to be seized to by the warrant.



It's sealed to the public, that kind of causes an issue when it comes to Citizen review. But I have in fact seen pics of the warrant taken at the residence, by the residents, and forwarded to me by the girls Mom.

That's what I thought with the vehicle and believed it was the home. The question is did they find something in the vehicle that gave them PC to search the home for evidence of other crimes.

 

[Joshuaace]

The question is did they find something in the vehicle that gave them PC to search the home for evidence of other crimes.

Now that you seemingly have PC figured out. Just before both these officers placed hands on this girl, they mutually concluded that they did not have PC.

 

[oldshadow]

Now that you seemingly have PC figured out. Just before both these officers placed hands on this girl, they mutually concluded that they did not have PC.

But they were still detaining her while they completed their investigation.

Or do you have it on video where she asked if she was free to go and they said yes.

You know the difference between being under arrest and being detained for investigation right. You know they do an investigation to determine if they can find PC enough to make an arrest. Then if they don't find PC for and arrest they say something like "we are going to let you go this time but we don't want to get called out here again on you". I don't remember that being said or her asking of she could go and them saying yes.

So their investigation is not over until they say it is and you can go.