Ind. S.C. "No right to resist illegal cop entry"; Ind. legislature strikes back

[grumbler]

Interesting.

Over here, given that guns killings of or by police are far less common, my gut instinct is it's harder to find police responsible for an 'unlawful killing'*.

Possibly so; OTOH, your police are less likely to justifiably feel threatened, so maybe it is easier to find them responsible if they do commit something like the Atlanta murder.

[jamesww]

Interesting.

Over here, given that guns killings of or by police are far less common, my gut instinct is it's harder to find police responsible for an 'unlawful killing'*.

Possibly so; OTOH, your police are less likely to justifiably feel threatened, so maybe it is easier to find them responsible if they do commit something like the Atlanta murder.

You know, I should try and find some statistics on this.

I'd be interested if it were possible to make a comparison.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Good.

We had a terrible case in Canada that went the other way.  POlice were executing a search warrant in Montreal.  The accused claimed he did not hear them yell "police!" and shot one of the officers, killing him.  He was acquitted at trial.

There's a similar case going on around here but it isn't very big news because the officer wasn't seriously injured. There also is a wrinkle to the case that makes the defendant's story a little bit believable.

A guy was operating a meth lab out of his house, as meth heads are sometimes prone to do. A few weeks prior to a police raid, the meth lab gets raided by some fellow meth heads who want the dealer/chemist's cash/meth. They bust in with shotguns, tie the guy and his friends up and steal a lot of his shit.

A few weeks later though he was back into full production when the police stormed through the front door, he opened fire this time and caught an officer in the hand. His defense at the moment is that while yes, he's a meth dealer/manufacturer he was simply trying to defend his home from what he believed was a home invasion. To spice it up a bit, I believe he also claims that during the home invasion a few weeks prior the guys initially yelled "police" as well, in order to throw him off--and that, he says, is why he opened fire even though he heard the officers yell out to identify themselves.

As I said "a little bit believable" but not much. He obviously is going to have to convince a jury that he was actually robbed a few weeks prior to the incident (since he didn't report it to police, obv.), and then he will have to convince the jury that the people robbing him had imitated police officers during the robbery. Then I guess on top of that he will to convince the jury that this is a justified reason to open fire on someone who has burst through your door in full police SWAT gear (which I as a hypothetical juror would have difficulty believing a methed out criminal to have.)

Of course even after all that he will still be convicted guilty as hell on the meth-related charges due to the glut of evidence acquired at the scene, and probably some charge relating to the fact he's a paroled felon who owns a firearm.

[MadImmortalMan]

From what I've heard of the case, the cops didn't identify themselves when they came in. If you know it's cops, then you better not fight. But if you don't know who it is breaking down your door in the middle of the night all bets are off, man. Isn't it standard procedure for the police to identify themselves before beginning the search, even in a no-knock situation?

[MadImmortalMan]

There's a similar case going on around here but it isn't very big news because the officer wasn't seriously injured. There also is a wrinkle to the case that makes the defendant's story a little bit believable.

A guy was operating a meth lab out of his house, as meth heads are sometimes prone to do. A few weeks prior to a police raid, the meth lab gets raided by some fellow meth heads who want the dealer/chemist's cash/meth. They bust in with shotguns, tie the guy and his friends up and steal a lot of his shit.

A few weeks later though he was back into full production when the police stormed through the front door, he opened fire this time and caught an officer in the hand. His defense at the moment is that while yes, he's a meth dealer/manufacturer he was simply trying to defend his home from what he believed was a home invasion. To spice it up a bit, I believe he also claims that during the home invasion a few weeks prior the guys initially yelled "police" as well, in order to throw him off--and that, he says, is why he opened fire even though he heard the officers yell out to identify themselves.

As I said "a little bit believable" but not much. He obviously is going to have to convince a jury that he was actually robbed a few weeks prior to the incident (since he didn't report it to police, obv.), and then he will have to convince the jury that the people robbing him had imitated police officers during the robbery. Then I guess on top of that he will to convince the jury that this is a justified reason to open fire on someone who has burst through your door in full police SWAT gear (which I as a hypothetical juror would have difficulty believing a methed out criminal to have.)

Of course even after all that he will still be convicted guilty as hell on the meth-related charges due to the glut of evidence acquired at the scene, and probably some charge relating to the fact he's a paroled felon who owns a firearm.

Damn, that's fucked. Better to just surround the place and pull out a bullhorn.

[Barrister]

There's a similar case going on around here but it isn't very big news because the officer wasn't seriously injured. There also is a wrinkle to the case that makes the defendant's story a little bit believable.

A guy was operating a meth lab out of his house, as meth heads are sometimes prone to do. A few weeks prior to a police raid, the meth lab gets raided by some fellow meth heads who want the dealer/chemist's cash/meth. They bust in with shotguns, tie the guy and his friends up and steal a lot of his shit.

A few weeks later though he was back into full production when the police stormed through the front door, he opened fire this time and caught an officer in the hand. His defense at the moment is that while yes, he's a meth dealer/manufacturer he was simply trying to defend his home from what he believed was a home invasion. To spice it up a bit, I believe he also claims that during the home invasion a few weeks prior the guys initially yelled "police" as well, in order to throw him off--and that, he says, is why he opened fire even though he heard the officers yell out to identify themselves.

As I said "a little bit believable" but not much. He obviously is going to have to convince a jury that he was actually robbed a few weeks prior to the incident (since he didn't report it to police, obv.), and then he will have to convince the jury that the people robbing him had imitated police officers during the robbery. Then I guess on top of that he will to convince the jury that this is a justified reason to open fire on someone who has burst through your door in full police SWAT gear (which I as a hypothetical juror would have difficulty believing a methed out criminal to have.)

Of course even after all that he will still be convicted guilty as hell on the meth-related charges due to the glut of evidence acquired at the scene, and probably some charge relating to the fact he's a paroled felon who owns a firearm.

Damn, that's fucked. Better to just surround the place and pull out a bullhorn.

Not if you want to find any evidence. 

[OttoVonBismarck]

From what I've heard of the case, the cops didn't identify themselves when they came in. If you know it's cops, then you better not fight. But if you don't know who it is breaking down your door in the middle of the night all bets are off, man. Isn't it standard procedure for the police to identify themselves before beginning the search, even in a no-knock situation?

I think you typically identify as you bust the door down. If you're desire to take a location like a house or apartment typically you want to just use a fuckton of shock and awe so that anyone inside doesn't have a chance to realize what has happened until they are face down with cuffs on their wrists.

Better still is of course being able to execute a more traditional search/arrest warrant and not have to engage in paramilitary raids at all, but when they are necessitated by the situation I think the ideal is to just neutralize everything very quickly (in the police context that would normally mean without actually discharging a firearm if it can be at all avoided.)

[CountDeMoney]

Police were executing a no-knock search warrant issued in defiance of the requirements for no-knock warrants, and when the 61-year-old woman in the house fired a round into the ceiling to scare them off, the police killed her.   

lulz

[grumbler]

lulz

Yeah.  The funny thing in the story was how everyone made sure to note that these were crooked police, as though there were other kinds. 

[Grey Fox]

It was also a poorly executed operation by police officer from a different city. The police fucked it up from the start. They paid for it dearly.

Meh.  Punks like you will always blame the police no matter what happens.

I live in Laval, most of the police force is hot chicks. I'd like to blame them

[Scipio]

This is a very real problem in Mississippi.  I see people repeatedly wrongfully arrested, people that the DA cannot even indict, on bogus warrants, bogus entries, where the cops lie about the existence of exigent circumstances.  It's bad enough that we have read the probable cause requirement of the 4th Amendment out of searches, reasoning that a warrant which is obtained at the time with probable cause is still good, even if at the time of the search that PC has ceased, but this is just an invitation for the police to abuse the populace further.

[The Brain]

This is a very real problem in Mississippi.

Copy/paste as required.

[Valmy]

I live in Laval, most of the police force is hot chicks.

[Grey Fox]

I live in Laval, most of the police force is hot chicks.

It's true. They hire a lot of girls.

[The Brain]

In Sweden ALL female officers are blondes with ponytails.