:hmm:
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html
Quote
Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home
By Dan Carden [email protected],
Posted: Friday, May 13, 2011 3:56 pm
INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.
In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.
"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."
David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.
The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.
When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.
Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.
"It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."
Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
"In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said. "I disagree."
Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.
But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."
This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.
On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking.
Good. I think that the government should be free to do whatever the hell it likes to people and anyone who resists should be sent to Machiavellian gaol.
That makes sense to me. Why up the ante for injuries when defence against the agents of the state is impossible. If the search is illegal, then it'll get thrown out at trial anyways.
I can easily see the police abusing this ruling in order to harass and intimidate, but agree with the court that the remedy for police mistakes and misconduct is not violence. I wonder how effective the threat of lawsuits will be in deterring police misconduct or negligence, though. It seems to me likely that, in many cases, the police desiring to abuse this ruling will simply believe that they can lie their way out of the consequences. OTOH, I am not sure that any given police have a great deal of incentive to abuse this ruling.
I agree with grumbler. I don't think the threat of violent response was a deterrent for cops not to perform unlawful searches - that's something they have to live with in a practical sense but unlikely it matters to them if they are being shot at lawfully or not.
This has to go hand in hand however with civil damages being available for victims of a wrongful search.
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.
Quote from: Barrister on May 14, 2011, 08:53:31 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 14, 2011, 09:31:28 AM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on May 14, 2011, 08:53:31 AM
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.
Plain clothes? I don't know anything about this particular case, but that's plausible.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 14, 2011, 11:02:14 AM
Plain clothes? I don't know anything about this particular case, but that's plausible.
Civilian clothing muffles the voice? :hmm:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 14, 2011, 11:02:14 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 14, 2011, 08:53:31 AM
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.
Plain clothes? I don't know anything about this particular case, but that's plausible.
I don't believe so.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2011, 11:15:39 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 14, 2011, 11:02:14 AM
Plain clothes? I don't know anything about this particular case, but that's plausible.
Civilian clothing muffles the voice? :hmm:
If they broke into the property forcefully, and were plain-clothed, it's plausible that they could be fired on by mistake.
While this ruling may be fine under Indiana law, I don't see how it could pass muster in a federal court--it seems at odds with the constittuional protection against unreasonable searches. OTOH, given the facts of the case as presented in the article, it would seem that the police may have had probable cause to enter, in which case it wasn't unlawful entry anyhow.
Quote from: dps on May 14, 2011, 03:23:13 PM
While this ruling may be fine under Indiana law, I don't see how it could pass muster in a federal court--it seems at odds with the constittuional protection against unreasonable searches.
As far as I know you're not authorized to use force defend yourself against other infringements on constitutional rights, are you?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2011, 03:35:04 PM
Quote from: dps on May 14, 2011, 03:23:13 PM
While this ruling may be fine under Indiana law, I don't see how it could pass muster in a federal court--it seems at odds with the constittuional protection against unreasonable searches.
As far as I know you're not authorized to use force defend yourself against other infringements on constitutional rights, are you?
Generally speaking, not directly, but if those infringements involve unlawful entry into your home, then you should be able to use violence just as you would be alllowed in any other case of unlawful entry.
So if a cop decides to break into your home and rape your wife, you have no legal right to defend yourself?
Quote from: Slargos on May 14, 2011, 03:44:32 PM
So if a cop decides to break into your home and rape your wife, you have no legal right to defend yourself?
Apparantly not in Indiana. You just get to sue the cop later. Which, if you don't really care all that much about your wife, could be a windfall.
Quote from: Barrister on May 14, 2011, 08:53:31 AM
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.
We had a terrible case in Atlanta that went the other way. 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. The four were all allowed to avoid murder charges by pleading guilty to "conspiracy to violate civil rights resulting in death," whatever that is. They also confessed to extortion, burglary, and various other charges arising out of the wide-spread police conspiracy to steal drugs seized in raids. They got less than half the recommended sentences (one of the killers serving less than five years and only more than six).
Quote from: Slargos on May 14, 2011, 03:44:32 PM
So if a cop decides to break into your home and rape your wife, you have no legal right to defend yourself?
Wrong thread.
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2011, 04:01:21 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 14, 2011, 03:44:32 PM
So if a cop decides to break into your home and rape your wife, you have no legal right to defend yourself?
Wrong thread.
Wrong life. :hug:
Quote from: Slargos on May 14, 2011, 04:03:56 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2011, 04:01:21 PM
Wrong thread.
Wrong life. :hug:
Oh, is that your mistake? I thought you were just posting in the wrong
thread. :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2011, 04:18:12 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 14, 2011, 04:03:56 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2011, 04:01:21 PM
Wrong thread.
Wrong life. :hug:
Oh, is that your mistake? I thought you were just posting in the wrong thread. :lol:
Oh, is that your mistake? I thought you were just putting off killing yourself because you thought your existence had meaning. :lol:
Grumbler is a living organism and thus has a survival instinct.
Quote from: Slargos on May 14, 2011, 04:20:31 PM
Oh, is that your mistake? I thought you were just putting off killing yourself because you thought your existence had meaning. :lol:
You thought: poorly.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 14, 2011, 04:28:38 PM
Grumbler is a living organism and thus has a survival instinct.
Debatable.
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2011, 04:55:43 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 14, 2011, 04:20:31 PM
Oh, is that your mistake? I thought you were just putting off killing yourself because you thought your existence had meaning. :lol:
You thought: poorly.
You thought: not at all.
Quote from: dps on May 14, 2011, 03:47:05 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 14, 2011, 03:44:32 PM
So if a cop decides to break into your home and rape your wife, you have no legal right to defend yourself?
Apparantly not in Indiana. You just get to sue the cop later. Which, if you don't really care all that much about your wife, could be a windfall.
I assume that the ruling is limited to cops entering under color of authority. I suppose a cop could claim to be acting under color of authority while he's violating your wife, but this seems so transparently wrong as to make his occupation merely coincidental to his being shot in the face.
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2011, 04:00:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 14, 2011, 08:53:31 AM
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.
We had a terrible case in Atlanta that went the other way. 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. The four were all allowed to avoid murder charges by pleading guilty to "conspiracy to violate civil rights resulting in death," whatever that is. They also confessed to extortion, burglary, and various other charges arising out of the wide-spread police conspiracy to steal drugs seized in raids. They got less than half the recommended sentences (one of the killers serving less than five years and only more than six).
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'*.
*an inquest verdict in England and Wales
Quote from: jamesww on May 14, 2011, 06:23:10 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2011, 06:34:47 PM
Quote from: jamesww on May 14, 2011, 06:23:10 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on May 14, 2011, 08:53:31 AM
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.
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?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 16, 2011, 10:08:59 PM
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 16, 2011, 10:18:39 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 16, 2011, 10:08:59 PM
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 16, 2011, 10:16:59 PM
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.)
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2011, 04:00:32 PM
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
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 16, 2011, 10:22:42 PM
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. :lol:
Quote from: Neil on May 14, 2011, 10:35:25 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 14, 2011, 09:31:28 AM
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 :perv:
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.
Quote from: Scipio on May 17, 2011, 08:27:06 AM
This is a very real problem in Mississippi.
Copy/paste as required.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 17, 2011, 06:28:17 AM
I live in Laval, most of the police force is hot chicks.
:yeahright:
Quote from: Valmy on May 17, 2011, 09:16:15 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 17, 2011, 06:28:17 AM
I live in Laval, most of the police force is hot chicks.
:yeahright:
It's true. They hire a lot of girls.
In Sweden ALL female officers are blondes with ponytails.
Apparently the Indiana Legislature disagreed.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20120322/LOCAL/203220345/Indiana-police-fear-state-s-new-right-resist-law
QuoteIndiana's new "right to resist" law worries police
Public's confusion over what is allowed will endanger cops, they say.
8:11 AM, Mar. 22, 2012 |
Gov. Mitch Daniels is warning Hoosiers that a new Indiana law meant to protect citizens from an illegal intrusion by police is no green light to resist law enforcement.
Police, though, fear it will lead to just that.
The law, passed by lawmakers who were outraged by a controversial Indiana Supreme Court decision, allows people to resist police, including with deadly force, but only if police are acting illegally.
Under the new law, people can resist if they reasonably think police are illegally entering their home or car and force is the only way to protect themselves or someone else from harm. Even then, there is no right to resist if the citizen was the aggressor or was committing a crime, and the citizen must first try to cool things down by withdrawing from the encounter with the police.
Sound confusing?
That is exactly what worries police.
William Owensby, president of Indianapolis Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 86, said the problem will be the public perception. He doubted that many people will take the time to read the new law and understand what they can and cannot do in a confrontation with police.
Tim Downs, president of the state Fraternal Order of Police, feared some people will hear only the "right to resist" part of the law and not all of the ifs, ands or buts explaining that that right applies only to the rare cases of a rogue officer.
"There's an element of society out there that doesn't have a lot of use for the police to begin with," he said. "They're going to view this as an avenue for them to go after us."
Daniels, who signed Senate Enrolled Act 1 into law Tuesday evening, tried to address those concerns in a statement issued Wednesday.
"The right thing to do is cooperate with (police) in every way possible," Daniels said. "This law is not an invitation to use violence or force against law enforcement officers. In fact, it restricts when an individual can use force, specifically deadly force, so don't try anything."
Daniels met with supporters and opponents of the new law, including Downs, and said he concluded that "contrary to some impressions, the bill strengthens the protection of Indiana law enforcement by narrowing the situations in which someone would be justified in using force against them."
The new law, which takes effect immediately, "clarifies the current requirement that a person reasonably believe the law enforcement officer is acting unlawfully," Daniels said, and adds a new requirement that the force "must be reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the citizen."
Unless the citizen is convinced that the officer acted unlawfully, "he cannot use any force of any kind."
"In the real world," Daniels said, "there will almost never be a situation in which these extremely narrow conditions are met."
Still, the fears that some people may perceive the law as a license to defy police are strong enough that the Indiana State Police followed up Daniels' statement with its own.
"This law may be misunderstood by the public," State Police Capt. Dave Bursten said. "My biggest fear is a homeowner, in the heat of the moment, will think an officer is entering their home illegally, when in fact the officer has every legal right to enter the home. . . . The bottom line is rash decisions can have devastating, life-altering consequences."
In fact, the Supreme Court case that led to the law, Barnes v. Indiana, involved a Vanderburgh County domestic violence complaint. The police there were acting legally, within the scope of their duties, when they responded and arrested a man when he shoved police as they entered an apartment.
In its 3-2 decision in May, the court more broadly discussed the issue of resisting police and found that "allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."
That sparked outrage from conservatives and liberals who felt that it overturned centuries of common law that viewed a man's home as his castle, as well as the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
The court, facing death threats as well as calls by lawmakers and by Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller to rethink the case, issued a 4-1 opinion in September, clarifying that the Fourth Amendment protections remained.
"Our earlier opinion was not intended to, and did not, change that existing law about the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses and papers against unreasonable searches and seizures," wrote Justice Steven David, who also had written the initial opinion.
State Rep. Jud McMillin, a Brookville Republican who was one of the bill's chief sponsors, said he believed the fact that the original case involved police acting legally, while the opinion also discussed police acting illegally, started the confusion that persists.
He said the law tries to balance the needs of police and citizens.
Under the new law, he said, "before anybody uses any type of force against a law enforcement officer, they have to try to extricate themselves."
"They have to try to get away," he said. "They have to try to retreat. It's designed to hopefully alleviate the problem of decisions made in the heat of the moment."
Downs, the FOP president, said police will explore "every option" to change the law, including asking legislators to revisit this issue in future sessions.
"We are not giving it up, I'll tell you that."
Any chance to take a shot at a cop will be well received by the groundlings.
If they reasonably think? Well, at least all those assholes who try and take advantage of this law are going to get resisting arrest tacked on.
Quote from: Neil on April 13, 2012, 07:40:03 AM
If they reasonably think? Well, at least all those assholes who try and take advantage of this law are going to get resisting arrest tacked on.
They won't have to worry about that, as the tactical teams will be much more open to going in hot from now on.
Way to go, Indiana. You just upped the percentages of civilians getting cut in half by breach shotguns.
So, this potentially means more dead hillbillies but also more dead cops? It's a win-win.
Stay classy Marty, stay classy.
Quote from: Martinus on April 13, 2012, 07:52:47 AM
So, this potentially means more dead hillbillies but also more dead cops? It's a win-win.
Shouldn't you be trying to blackmail teenage boys into gay porn?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 13, 2012, 07:43:26 AM
They won't have to worry about that, as the tactical teams will be much more open to going in hot from now on.
Way to go, Indiana. You just upped the percentages of civilians getting cut in half by breach shotguns.
Agreed. The solution is to jail cops acting illegally, not to try to encourage people to engage crooked/incompetent cops in gunfire. Even crooked or incompetent cops are going to win shootouts, due to better training.
If cops are monitored at all times while on duty, and punished if they break the rules, vigilantism is unnecessary.
Quote from: Slargos on May 14, 2011, 03:44:32 PM
So if a cop decides to break into your home and rape your wife, you have no legal right to defend yourself?
QuoteWe believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence
Are wives considered "homes" in Scandi-land?
Yeah, the ghost of Slargos Past, are they?
QuoteBut Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."
Is there an historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry in the US? If there is such an historic right, what is the legal test for determining whether the citizen thought the police entry was illegal? Is it subjective or objective. If it is subjective that seems to give a license to shoot at cops going about their job in a legitimate way. If it is objective what happens in circumstances where police have a right to enter without warrant?
Allowing citizens the right to resist police seems a poor policy choice given the alternative of allowing citizens to have a remedy through civil suits or complaints to police disciplinary bodies or a combination of both.
Grumbler, to your point re corruption, one of the things we have done in this jurisdiction is create an independent police complaints system so that police do not investigate themselves.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 13, 2012, 11:54:43 AM
Grumbler, to your point re corruption, one of the things we have done in this jurisdiction is create an independent police complaints system so that police do not investigate themselves.
That exists in some jurisdictions in the US as well, but the problem is getting the cops to tell the truth in situations where cop guilt isn't crystal-clear. That's why I am such a fan of monitoring; it encourages police honesty as much as it gives an objective recording of some or all of the controversy.