Indiana Supreme Court: Cops can rape and kill you

[MR2-Sooner86]

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home (http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html)


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.

F*ck that sh*t!

P.S. Mitch Daniels appointed the judge.

[mgsooner]

Sounds like a solid ruling to me. F*cking hippies.

[jk the sooner fan]

this was a no brainer ruling in my opinion...if you have a problem with it - you have an extremely weak understanding of precedent rulings

[Midtowner]

Using force against police officers should never be privileged. I don't really see the problem with this ruling. While the police might be doing something unlawfully, there are plenty of remedies you have through the courts. Force ain't one of 'em.

Let's take this hypo: Police officers are given an arrest warrant for someone who is accused of manufacture of narcotics. They figure that based on these individuals, they need the SWAT team, and they feel that their best way to avoid casualties and the destruction of evidence is to serve a no-knock warrant. They set up the raid, kick in the door, and begin to sweep the building. They identify as the police. There is resistance, heavy gun fire, a firefight ensues where both police and individuals in the house are killed.

After the dust settles, police learn that the clerk who typed up the arrest warrant typed the house number backwards and that the people inside the house were actually members of the High Noon Club, a local ultra-conservative Second Amendment rights club and that they were (in their minds) lawfully resisting police officers who had just unlawfully intruded into their clubhouse.

What should the result be here?

[sappstuf]

I've always thought the 4th amendment and the Magna Carta were highly overrated.....

[My Opinion Matters]

Fascists. The whole lot of you.

[GKeeper316]

are you people ****ing kidding me? you think its ok for someone to come into your home with no cause just because he wears a gun and a badge?

this is not america anymore. you **** away the rights thousands upon thousands of men and women died to give you and protect because it makes you feel safer???

the supreme court is gonna bitch slap this pos ruling.

[GKeeper316]

Using force against police officers should never be privileged. I don't really see the problem with this ruling. While the police might be doing something unlawfully, there are plenty of remedies you have through the courts. Force ain't one of 'em.

Let's take this hypo: Police officers are given an arrest warrant for someone who is accused of manufacture of narcotics. They figure that based on these individuals, they need the SWAT team, and they feel that their best way to avoid casualties and the destruction of evidence is to serve a no-knock warrant. They set up the raid, kick in the door, and begin to sweep the building. They identify as the police. There is resistance, heavy gun fire, a firefight ensues where both police and individuals in the house are killed.

After the dust settles, police learn that the clerk who typed up the arrest warrant typed the house number backwards and that the people inside the house were actually members of the High Noon Club, a local ultra-conservative Second Amendment rights club and that they were (in their minds) lawfully resisting police officers who had just unlawfully intruded into their clubhouse.

What should the result be here?

cops deserved to get shot in this hypo. it is the burden of the state to accurately enforce warrants. if the clerk ****ed up, its the state's fault, not the fault of the people lawfully resisting an illegal entry into their residence or place of business.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Sounds like a solid ruling to me. F*cking hippies.

this was a no brainer ruling in my opinion...if you have a problem with it - you have an extremely weak understanding of precedent rulings

Using force against police officers should never be privileged. I don't really see the problem with this ruling.

If brains were spit there wouldn't be enough here to lick a stamp.


While the police might be doing something unlawfully, there are plenty of remedies you have through the courts. Force ain't one of 'em.

That is unless it's the wrong house and you get killed. You can't get bailed out of a pine box.

As for force being wrong, the Castle Doctrine says otherwise.

I get what you're saying though. I mean if somebody is breaking into my home within a few seconds I'm supposed to figure that out after being woken from a dead sleep and grabbing my gun while adrenalin dumps into my bloodstream from the fear and panic I'm feeling thinking that I'm being subjected to a home invasion and my family is about to be raped and murdered. I'm supposed to figure that out within seconds... and if I don't figure it out in time and act correctly then I may be dead or on trial for murdering an officer.

Like this guy (http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/news/articles/unusual/no-drug-bust.aspx) who shot a cop thinking his house was being broken into. Of course he's in prison now for murder.

Remember kids, the state is always right, always.


Let's take this hypo: Police officers are given an arrest warrant for someone who is accused of manufacture of narcotics. They figure that based on these individuals, they need the SWAT team, and they feel that their best way to avoid casualties and the destruction of evidence is to serve a no-knock warrant. They set up the raid, kick in the door, and begin to sweep the building. They identify as the police. There is resistance, heavy gun fire, a firefight ensues where both police and individuals in the house are killed.

After the dust settles, police learn that the clerk who typed up the arrest warrant typed the house number backwards and that the people inside the house were actually members of the High Noon Club, a local ultra-conservative Second Amendment rights club and that they were (in their minds) lawfully resisting police officers who had just unlawfully intruded into their clubhouse.

What should the result be here?

You mean like in these raids?

man shot to death in drug raid, they had wrong house (http://cjonline.com/stories/060801/kan_suitsettled.shtml)

84 year old woman killed in drug raid, wrong house (http://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/10/us/police-shooting-focuses-black-anger-in-texas-city.html)

64 year old man killed in drug raid, wrong house (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19705)

I can find many examples of "shoot first, ask questions later" by the police or "accidents" that occur.

So you ask, "What should the results be?"

Well for starters don't pass stupid laws giving them a reason to unlawfully enter your house. You do that, you don't have many of these mistakes.

Second, get rid of the "no knock" raids because there are plenty of stories out there where the police were idiots in serving them. For instance the town where the police accidentally went to the mayor's house. The only reason they use "no knock" raids is so drug dealers can't flush their stash. Yup, we're killing our own citizens but we kept that pot head from flushing his ounce!

If you break into somebody house without saying anything, expect to get shot. It's as simple as that.

It's sad really for those who thinks this is good, willing to bend over and take it no questions asked. It must take a really weak minded individual to do that.

[Sooner_Tuf]

I guess someone can make a rule but if you kick my door in and I wake up I will probably assume the worst. If I don't wake up please lock up after you figure out you had the wrong address.

Kicking in doors is bad business if you want to live to be old.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I agree with no knock warrants as long as it's not at my crib...

[jk the sooner fan]

speaking of brains -the thread title lacks any semblance of brains - it has zero to do with the actual article, and simply shows your emotions about the police in general


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."


i'm sure mike rich can come here and throw down his legal analysis in less than 5000 words........but the bottom line is the OP is not thinking thru the real issue here

[yermom]

The issue that warrants are outdated? Individuals have no right to privacy in Indiana?

[KABOOKIE]

The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to cops?

[yermom]

Saying that you can post bail after the fact as justification for this just shows how out of touch they are.

[Sooner5030]

I can't believe we still allow no-knocks. Just great......we pay the pensions of a bunch of folks who are allowed to trample all over my rights. What a scam.

[KABOOKIE]

Saying that you can post bail after the fact as justification for this just shows how out of touch they are.

Heh. You have nothing to be worried about if you have nothing to hide.

[Sooner5030]

the post bail thing pisses me off. You can get arrested for DUI, car impounded and then blow below the legal limit and you still have to pay to get your car out. As long as the officer acted in good faith you wont get any money from him. Kinda sucks the system is gamed that way.

[Wayne Jarvis]

Heh. You have nothing to be worried about if you have nothing to hide.


Yes, because the police never make mistakes.

[Sooner_Tuf]

Heh. You have nothing to be worried about if you have nothing to hide.

You do in Indiana. Nothing wrong with knocking or using the bell.

[Midtowner]

I can't believe we still allow no-knocks. Just great......we pay the pensions of a bunch of folks who are allowed to trample all over my rights. What a scam.

You are incredibly naive.

No-knocks are used because they save officer's lives and deprive turds of the opportunity to flush the evidence. It is very common for dealers to keep their drugs near a toilet so that if the house is raided, they still have the opportunity to flush the evidence.

[Pricetag]

Does the definition of "unlawful entry" here specifically mean cases where a warrant is issued erroneously? Wouldn't no warrant at all be unlawful, as well? They're not saying that if the police show up, just let them in regardless and hope for the best, are they?

[Sooner5030]

No-knocks are used because they save officer's lives and deprive turds of the opportunity to flush the evidence. It is very common for dealers to keep their drugs near a toilet so that if the house is raided, they still have the opportunity to flush the evidence.

I'm not scared of druggies hiding stuff in their house.........I'm a afraid of some idiot sanctioned with a badge being able to knock down my door and I have no recourse other than to bend over and take it.

[delhalew]

Does the definition of "unlawful entry" here specifically mean cases where a warrant is issued erroneously? Wouldn't no warrant at all be unlawful, as well? They're not saying that if the police show up, just let them in regardless and hope for the best, are they?

Judging by the example in the article regarding the domestic dispute, that is exactly what they mean. Shut up, back down, and do what you're told is what they are saying.

That lack of the American spirit is depressing. I am a big supporter of the police, but have had too much rope for way to long. We clearly don't care much for our freedom. What an insult to the great men who preceded us.

[sappstuf]

I'm not scared of druggies hiding stuff in their house.........I'm a afraid of some idiot sanctioned with a badge being able to knock down my door and I have no recourse other than to bend over and take it.

And if you did fire back in fear of your daughter's and your own life, you may get the death penalty....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye

[Midtowner]

They're not saying that if the police show up, just let them in regardless and hope for the best, are they?

Yes, because the 4th Amendment should protect you. Anything the police find while executing a warrant at the wrong address should be excluded.

[Midtowner]

Does the definition of "unlawful entry" here specifically mean cases where a warrant is issued erroneously? Wouldn't no warrant at all be unlawful, as well? They're not saying that if the police show up, just let them in regardless and hope for the best, are they?

Yes. That's how you live in an ordered society like ours. This isn't the wild west. Police officers have a dangerous job, and no, there is never a time where it's okay to shoot at them. Period. Never. Sue their asses off? Hell yes.

As far as no warrant goes, absent exigent circumstances, such as a violent domestic incident being in progress, they can't enter without consent.

[jkjsooner]

are you people ****ing kidding me? you think its ok for someone to come into your home with no cause just because he wears a gun and a badge?

this is not america anymore. you **** away the rights thousands upon thousands of men and women died to give you and protect because it makes you feel safer???

the supreme court is gonna bitch slap this pos ruling.


When exactly do you have the right to resist? When you think you are innocent? When you think the law is unconstitutional? When you think that law enforcement is being oppressive?

You do see that there's a slippery slope with those types of arguments. We will never all agree on the proper role of the law and law enforcement. That's why we have courts. When you choose to resist you are making a statement that you are the only person who can make that determination.

[jkjsooner]

I get what you're saying though. I mean if somebody is breaking into my home within a few seconds I'm supposed to figure that out after being woken from a dead sleep and grabbing my gun while adrenalin dumps into my bloodstream from the fear and panic I'm feeling thinking that I'm being subjected to a home invasion and my family is about to be raped and murdered. I'm supposed to figure that out within seconds... and if I don't figure it out in time and act correctly then I may be dead or on trial for murdering an officer.


I think you effectively changed the subject here. The people here knew that that it was the police who wanted to enter. They felt they could resist because the police were acting unlawfully. That is a completely different scenario than the one you present here.

I agree that a SWAT team exercising a no-knock warrant are putting their officers at risk and they must accept some of the consequences if the resident mistakenly reacts as if there is a normal home invasion.

[KABOOKIE]

Yes. That's how you live in an ordered society like ours. This isn't the wild west. Police officers have a dangerous job, and no, there is never a time where it's okay to shoot at them. Period. Never. Sue their asses off? Hell yes.

As far as no warrant goes, absent exigent circumstances, such as a violent domestic incident being in progress, they can't enter without consent.

Bool****. Cops are not above the law. If they break the law while on duty and attempt to kill you, you have every right to blow the pig's head clean off.

Honestly, everyone has a ****ing dagerous job. Pigs are just making their jobs more dangerous by falsifying records and doing ****ty police work. **** em.

[Sooner_Tuf]

Bool****. Cops are not above the law. If they break the law while on duty and attempt to kill you, you have every right to blow the pig's head clean off.

Honestly, everyone has a ****ing dagerous job. Pigs are just making their jobs more dangerous by falsifying records and doing ****ty police work. **** em.

Not exactly how I would word it but the sentiment is the same.

Would I shoot a cop in my home? Probably not but if you kick my door in while I am sleeping and I wake up if you don't get shot it's because I missed.

I'll say it again kicking people's doors in is bad business. If you do need to do it you better make damn sure you have the right house.

[Mongo]

Honestly, everyone has a ****ing dagerous job. Pigs are just making their jobs more dangerous by falsifying records and doing ****ty police work. **** em.

and they CHOOSE to do that job

[Spring]

F*ck the Police. Jack booted thugs.

[OUMallen]

Judging by the example in the article regarding the domestic dispute, that is exactly what they mean. Shut up, back down, and do what you're told is what they are saying.

That lack of the American spirit is depressing. I am a big supporter of the police, but have had too much rope for way to long. We clearly don't care much for our freedom. What an insult to the great men who preceded us.

Yep. this is what happens when you hypervalue the police. They're more important than we are, and now we err on the side of allowing the government to violate our privacy. It's a little weird.

When the government and country were formed, the idea was that we would let criminals go in order to make sure we weren't violating the rights of an innocent individual. Now we have provable numbers of innocent people in jail and NOW the police don't even have to be careful on their entries at this point.

I believe that a no-knock warrant is just fine in the right circumstance. But this goes too far.

[GKeeper316]

When exactly do you have the right to resist? When you think you are innocent? When you think the law is unconstitutional? When you think that law enforcement is being oppressive?

You do see that there's a slippery slope with those types of arguments. We will never all agree on the proper role of the law and law enforcement. That's why we have courts. When you choose to resist you are making a statement that you are the only person who can make that determination.

it is a long standing legal tradition that resisting law enforcement is warranted and acceptible if law enforcement is engaging in acts of tyranny. entering your home without your permission, just cause, or a valid and legal warrant is an act of tyranny.

safety is always subordinate to the interests of liberty. anyone that thinks otherwise is a fascist unamerican doosh.

[jk the sooner fan]

Bool****. Cops are not above the law. If they break the law while on duty and attempt to kill you, you have every right to blow the pig's head clean off.

Honestly, everyone has a ****ing dagerous job. Pigs are just making their jobs more dangerous by falsifying records and doing ****ty police work. **** em.

nm

[delhalew]

When exactly do you have the right to resist? When you think you are innocent? When you think the law is unconstitutional? When you think that law enforcement is being oppressive?

You do see that there's a slippery slope with those types of arguments. We will never all agree on the proper role of the law and law enforcement. That's why we have courts. When you choose to resist you are making a statement that you are the only person who can make that determination.

Resisting arrest? Are they arresting you now? That's funny. I thought they were trespassing.

[MR2-Sooner86]

speaking of brains -the thread title lacks any semblance of brains - it has zero to do with the actual article, and simply shows your emotions about the police in general

Extreme? Yes but it got people to click on it.

I mean, the police never rape (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/nyregion/06rape.html?_r=1) people, plant evidence to justify their wrongful murder (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/us/27atlanta.html) of citizens, or ignore warrants (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/05/AR2008080502664.html) while on the job, ever.


i'm sure mike rich can come here and throw down his legal analysis in less than 5000 words........but the bottom line is the OP is not thinking thru the real issue here

Not thinking through the real issue? How so? I also see you quoted this passage from the article.


"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."

I find that cops illegally entering my home unnecessarily escalates the level of violence.


Anyway, I found the Oklahoma Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground.

A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

B. A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

C. The presumption set forth in subsection B of this section does not apply if:

1. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not a protective order from domestic violence in effect or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

2. The person or persons sought to be removed are children or grandchildren, or are otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

3. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity.

D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

E. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle of another person is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

F. A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes charging or prosecuting the defendant.

G. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force, but the law enforcement agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

H. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection F of this section.

I. The provisions of this section and the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Sections 1290.1 through 1290.26 of this title, shall not be construed to require any person using a pistol pursuant to the provisions of this section to be licensed in any manner.

J. As used in this section:

1. "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people;

2. "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest; and

3. "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property. (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69782)

The law is simple, somebody breaks into your home and you're fearful of your life, shoot to kill.

[jk the sooner fan]

you're obviously the legal expert, i'll just defer to your opinion

[MR2-Sooner86]

you're obviously the legal expert, i'll just defer to your opinion

Translation: I have no rebuttal so I'm going to back out before I have to present things like facts and evidence to support my argument.

[jk the sooner fan]

oh i have a rebuttal, and a 20 year career in law enforcement

you cant argue with people who have an inherent hatred/paranoia for the police

[delhalew]

oh i have a rebuttal, and a 20 year career in law enforcement

you cant argue with people who have an inherent hatred/paranoia for the police

You couldn't be more off base. There is a big dofference between respect for officers of the law, and lining up to have an over zealous and/or misinformed officer trample all over what few rights to privacy and safety we have left.

[delhalew]

I have some very close friends in law enforcement. What that has confirmed for me is that some of their coworkers range from deranged to careless. That is a symptom of being human. Yes, a trained human. Some are going to take a lot from that training. Some won't. Some will get people killed.

[Midtowner]

Translation: I have no rebuttal so I'm going to back out before I have to present things like facts and evidence to support my argument.

Actually, I don't think (and someone could try and correct me if I'm wrong) that the police negligently executing a search warrant and entering upon someone's property is necessarily unlawful.


1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

Again, the key word here is "unlawful." And the law is that the search isn't unlawful if the officer reasonably believes that his presence there is lawful Anderson v. Creighton, 483 US 635 (1987). Hence, you unload your sidearm on a law enforcement officer who is mistakenly executing a no-knock warrant in your home, you'll probably find yourself in the clink.

[MR2-Sooner86]

oh i have a rebuttal, and a 20 year career in law enforcement

Then you obviously know, as a police officer, that it's rather dangerous to go charging into somebody's house. You also know all of the problems that have sprung up with "no knock" warrants. Again, being a police officer for 20 years I'm sure you already know all of this.


you cant argue with people who have an inherent hatred/paranoia for the police

Did I say that? No I have not. I'm pointing out that police have made many mistakes and there are many idiots in the police force. You mix the two and you have problems. The name Daniel Martin come to mind? However, the double standards that apply for police and not citizens is rather one sided and I don't want to add to it. Illegally entering into somebody's house is something nobody should do unless they want to look like Swiss Cheese.


Actually, I don't think (and someone could try and correct me if I'm wrong) that the police negligently executing a search warrant and entering upon someone's property is necessarily unlawful.

If it's a search warrant on a drug dealer's house, no, the drug dealer has no rights in regards of defense. That part is what I got from the law. However, if it's the wrong house and the homeowner shoots the policeman, who's in the wrong? Is it the policeman or the homeowner who felt he was in danger?


Again, the key word here is "unlawful." And the law is that the search isn't unlawful if the officer reasonably believes that his presence there is lawful Anderson v. Creighton, 483 US 635 (1987). Hence, you unload your sidearm on a law enforcement officer who is mistakenly executing a no-knock warrant in your home, you'll probably find yourself in the clink.

Anderson v. Creighton the police thought somebody was in a house that they weren't in. It could be argued but what if they hit the wrong house altogether? Is there not a difference between?

[Midtowner]

Then you obviously know, as a police officer, that it's rather dangerous to go charging into somebody's house. You also know all of the problems that have sprung up with "no knock" warrants. Again, being a police officer for 20 years I'm sure you already know all of this.

Even if the castle doctrine defense doesn't apply, the homeowner still has to be convicted of homicide. It would probably turn on whether the homeowner believed or had reason to believe that the folks in his home were police officers. If he knew they were police officers, I think you have a possible murder case.


Did I say that? No I have not. I'm pointing out that police have made many mistakes and there are many idiots in the police force. You mix the two and you have problems. The name Daniel Martin come to mind? However, the double standards that apply for police and not citizens is rather one sided and I don't want to add to it. Illegally entering into somebody's house is something nobody should do unless they want to look like Swiss Cheese.

Well, there is a double standard for officers of the law. I'm as ticked as the next guy that Trooper Martin is still employed as a LEO. That said, police officers get to use force where regular folks don't. Deal with it.


If it's a search warrant on a drug dealer's house, no, the drug dealer has no rights in regards of defense. That part is what I got from the law. However, if it's the wrong house and the homeowner shoots the policeman, who's in the wrong? Is it the policeman or the homeowner who felt he was in danger?

[quote]Anderson v. Creighton the police thought somebody was in a house that they weren't in. It could be argued but what if they hit the wrong house altogether? Is there not a difference between?

If the officers are acting in good faith, they get to do a lot of things. We can't expect perfection.

[MR2-Sooner86]

That said, police officers get to use force where regular folks don't. Deal with it.

In terms of self defense, no they don't, if you have a concealed carry permit. Even then, as they say, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by six.


If the officers are acting in good faith, they get to do a lot of things. We can't expect perfection.

That's the problem I have is the "good faith" part. As stated above, if they're chasing a criminal through a neighborhood, obviously you can't get a warrant in that short of time. That'd be a gray area however what is mostly done in those situations? I'm pretty sure they surround the house/building before acting. I don't believe they go storming into any house because they "think" the criminal "might" be in there. In those cases, I don't blame a homeowner for opening fire. As you said, if he knew they were police and still opened fire, yes he deserves the book thrown at him. However, getting a search warrant and hitting the wrong house, that's a big no no. Especially when allot of these raids happen in the middle of the night. I see a difference between the two scenarios in terms of liability.

[jkjsooner]

Bool****. Cops are not above the law. If they break the law while on duty and attempt to kill you, you have every right to blow the pig's head clean off.

Honestly, everyone has a ****ing dagerous job. Pigs are just making their jobs more dangerous by falsifying records and doing ****ty police work. **** em.

Where did "attempt to kill you" come in? I didn't see anything like that in the article.

This is just another attempt to change the subject to try to win an argument. Let's stick to the story and ruling here.

[jkjsooner]

Resisting arrest? Are they arresting you now? That's funny. I thought they were trespassing.

When did I say resisting arrest? I said resisting as in being uncooperative and in this case physically abusive.

It's up to the courts to determine if the police's actions were trespassing. It's not up to you.

If the courts allowed every Joe Blow to determine what the cops are legally allowed to do we'd have a mess on our hands.

[Midtowner]

That's the problem I have is the "good faith" part. As stated above, if they're chasing a criminal through a neighborhood, obviously you can't get a warrant in that short of time. That'd be a gray area however what is mostly done in those situations?

If you're in hot pursuit, or there are exigent circumstances, such as a crime actually being in progress, no warrant is needed.


I'm pretty sure they surround the house/building before acting. I don't believe they go storming into any house because they "think" the criminal "might" be in there.

They do this because of safety issues. Deadly force is a last resort and if they go in without first trying to negotiate, it's more likely someone is going to die.

[jkjsooner]

You couldn't be more off base. There is a big dofference between respect for officers of the law, and lining up to have an over zealous and/or misinformed officer trample all over what few rights to privacy and safety we have left.

Officers do have the ability to abuse their power and unless your life is truly in jeopardy there isn't much you can do about it AT THE MOMENT. It's an unfortunate reality but I see no way around it.

The inequity of power is exactly why we hold cops to a higher standard when on duty. If they beat up a guy the criminal consequences are much higher than if you or I beat up a guy. They're given a lot of power and with that power comes serious responsibility and consequences for abusing that power. Does it always work, of course not but that is the way the laws are set up.

On a similar veign, that is also why impersonating an officer is such a serious crime. When we are required to yield authority to such a level, any and all abuse of that authority must be treated very severely. But, outside of cases where the one's life is in jeopardy, this has to be done in an orderly manner. We would have chaos if we were all given free reign to shoot any officer that we felt had crossed the line.

[Sooner_Tuf]

Police Officers are not held to a higher standard. People go to jail, police officers almost never go to jail. We have had some pretty bad things take place in the last year or two in western Oklahoma that the criminal was a law enforcement officer. Most of them have lost their jobs or have been suspended. There is no mention of them ever doing any jail time.

I used to side with the police on most issues. Now I think their image is so tarnished and there has been enough corruption I don't. The police have changed in the last forty years. I think it is for the worse.

I am retired military and I don't feel any kind of brotherhood with them. I am offended when they try to pretend they have some with me. Their role (if they do their job properly) is not a military role in any way, shape, or form. It is a mistake that they want to pretend they are and it has hurt their relationship with the public.

There may be circumstances where they need to do a no knock warrant. But if I were in charge it would absolutely be a last resort as I know the risk for everyone involved goes up tremendously.

You wanna know what makes me laugh out loud everytime? They will kick in an old ladies door and treat her like crap (taser an 80 year old bedfast woman) but if they think there has been gunfire they will camp outside for twelve hours until they are sure there is not going to be an armed confrontation.

As a taxpayer it is frustrating to watch us spend billions of dollars and in return we get an arrogant bunch of overweight, lazy, sorry, s.o.b.s.

I know that I have gotten out of the scope of the question but I do think it is relevant as to why people are not comfortable giving the police a judgement call like that.

Since I am so far out in left field anyway. Here is a good example of what I think of L/E today. I am watching TV and they are showing the border patrol in a freaking blackhawk helicopter overlooking a tiny region in California. They "need" a helicopter because the terrain is much to rugged to traverse. Yet on the ground are about three dozens mexican illegals, many of them women carrying children and luggage.

Law Enforcement is much like many other parts of Government they want to manage huge budgets, pretend their jobs are super dangerous, buy super expensive high tech toys, etc.

Law enforcement in the USA is not the Navy, they don't need the same tools. They are not the Army, they don't need the same tools. They are not the Air Force, they do not need the same tools.

If you are L/E officer and you disagree. Then instead of your next 8 hour donut shiift. Load your happy hiney up and head out on a six, eight, ten, or even twenty four month shift in a place that actually is dangerous. You can kick in all the doors you want.

[KABOOKIE]

Where did "attempt to kill you" come in? I didn't see anything like that in the article.

This is just another attempt to change the subject to try to win an argument. Let's stick to the story and ruling here.

When Midtown said this.


Police officers have a dangerous job, and no, there is never a time where it's okay to shoot at them. Period. Never.

Try and keep up with the discussion.

Oh and as for the story and ruling.... A cop is dead and a man is on death row for what? A flipping joint. Nice. Cops should probably stick with traffic enforcement.

[Harry Beanbag]

If you're in hot pursuit...


http://media.monstersandcritics.com/articles/1167777/article_images/bosshoggandroscoep.coltraneinhotpursuit.jpg

[yermom]

You couldn't be more off base. There is a big dofference between respect for officers of the law, and lining up to have an over zealous and/or misinformed officer trample all over what few rights to privacy and safety we have left.

Plus on a no knock warrant, they want surprise, they haven't identified themselves as cops. In that initial contact there is going to be some confusion, that with guns on both sides gets people killed

[oumartin]

If you take away the guns from the law abidding citizens you won't have to worry about some homeowner protecting his family if the cops get the wrong house. Just another reason to outlaw the right to bear arms! ;)

[soonerbrat]

Using force against police officers should never be privileged. I don't really see the problem with this ruling. While the police might be doing something unlawfully, there are plenty of remedies you have through the courts. Force ain't one of 'em.

Let's take this hypo: Police officers are given an arrest warrant for someone who is accused of manufacture of narcotics. They figure that based on these individuals, they need the SWAT team, and they feel that their best way to avoid casualties and the destruction of evidence is to serve a no-knock warrant. They set up the raid, kick in the door, and begin to sweep the building. They identify as the police. There is resistance, heavy gun fire, a firefight ensues where both police and individuals in the house are killed.

After the dust settles, police learn that the clerk who typed up the arrest warrant typed the house number backwards and that the people inside the house were actually members of the High Noon Club, a local ultra-conservative Second Amendment rights club and that they were (in their minds) lawfully resisting police officers who had just unlawfully intruded into their clubhouse.

What should the result be here?

Someone's been watching The Closer.

[Mongo]

If you take away the guns from the law abidding citizens you won't have to worry about some homeowner protecting his family if the cops get the wrong house. Just another reason to outlaw the right to bear arms! ;)

http://images3.makefive.com/images/entertainment/other/visual-puns/bear-arms-7.jpg

[oudanny]

I'm not an attorney or expert on the law so I can't add much to the legal discussion here. What I can say is if I am sitting on the jury for a case involving someone charged with shooting someone that illegally and forcibly entered their home, I will vote to acquit.

[Midtowner]

The inequity of power is exactly why we hold cops to a higher standard when on duty. If they beat up a guy the criminal consequences are much higher than if you or I beat up a guy. They're given a lot of power and with that power comes serious responsibility and consequences for abusing that power. Does it always work, of course not but that is the way the laws are set up.

Oh come on.

Now this is just absurd in my experience. I can give you all kinds of anecdotes where police have used too much force and not been held accountable. Trooper Martin was mentioned earlier. I'm sure every single person in this thread has had some experience with an overzealous officer employing too much force, or knows someone who has.

Part of the public's distrust of police officers is that we all know they by and large get away with a lot of stuff they shouldn't get away with. We all know what "professional courtesy" is, so here's the deal: if you think officers should be held to a higher standard, create that sort of internal culture. I don't believe that culture exists, and neither do most people.

That said, I still agree with the Indiana Court's decision. The use of force against an officer of the law should never be privileged. Period.

[Midtowner]

I'm not an attorney or expert on the law so I can't add much to the legal discussion here. What I can say is if I am sitting on the jury for a case involving someone charged with shooting someone that illegally and forcibly entered their home, I will vote to acquit.

And during voire dire, when the jury is polled, the State will definitely ask whether you think the homeowner is always allowed to use deadly force against someone who illegally and forcibly entered their home, and assuming you don't lie, you'll be making a return trip to the jury pool.

[MR2-Sooner86]

That said, I still agree with the Indiana Court's decision. The use of force against an officer of the law should never be privileged. Period.

You come across as talking out both sides of your mouth.

You mention the public's distrust of the police.
http://www.dedroidify.com/blogimages/punish_enslave.jpg
I'm adding that because I've seen a few articles and references on how that was actually social commentary by the filmmakers.

Anyway, you mention the distrust and the attitude that has been building the past 30-40 years on the police. I've mentioned several things as well as you and others.

With that said you say all of this but then say using force against an officer is bad. Again, what is force? I know several people during the Officer Martin ordeal that said they would've punched him had he laid his hand on their throat. As mentioned, there are stories of police officers getting shot by breaking into the wrong house.

Do you really think the police should get the benefit of a doubt 10 times out of 10? I don't. I hate how there have been police "accidentally" shoot somebody and get a slap on the wrist. A citizen who didn't know what was going on shoots a cop and gets locked away with the key thrown away. I say it's bull****.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home (http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html)



F*ck that sh*t!

P.S. Mitch Daniels appointed the judge.Daniels and Gingrich are history, now. Victims of political suicide.

[pphilfran]

I am with Midtowner...

If you don't want your azz beat or thrown in the can you do anything and everything the officer says...

If he wants you to suck his thang...you suck his thang...and smile while you are doing it...

You then sue at a the first opportunity...

[Mongo]

I am with Midtowner...

If you don't want your azz beat or thrown in the can you do anything and everything the officer says...

If he wants you to suck his thang...you suck his thang...and smile while you are doing it...

You then sue at a the first opportunity...

you suck away. I think I will take a tazering or a Rodney King beating instead

[pphilfran]

you suck away. I think I will take a tazering or a Rodney King beating instead

:D

[OUMallen]

SCOTUS rules 8-1 that cops can create their own exigent circumstances to validate a warrentless search of a home

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1272.pdf

Slowly but surely, man. This case is out of KY originally. Now the cops can create exigent circumstances themselves, and then enter your home without a warrant.

[pphilfran]

SCOTUS rules 8-1 that cops can create their own exigent circumstances to validate a warrentless search of a home

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1272.pdf

Slowly but surely, man. This case is out of KY originally. Now the cops can create exigent circumstances themselves, and then enter your home without a warrant.

It looks to me the correct decision was made...

It was a sting...they watched a transaction and followed the dude home...smelled pot...banged on the door...loudly announced they were the police...heard the toilet flushing..kicked the door in...

[OUMallen]

I disagree. The facts you stated gave probably cause for a WARRANT to be obtained.

There was time for a warrant. They didn't get one. They used a legal excuse to avoid getting one, that "exigent circumstances" existed (sounded like evidence was being disposed of). But the thing is: no exigent circumstances existed until the cops caused them. Under this case, the warrant requirement is completly out the door because, any time they have probable cause for a WARRANT, all the cops have to do is make people panic, and BOOM, exigent circumstances.

The cops have your thought process where they want it: law breakers got caught, so it's all good in the end. That's not what the Founding Fathers wanted. I guess it's a matter of opinion, but really, this effectively eviscerates warrant requirements in a big way.

[Mongo]

if cops are banging on a door and yelling, and unless the ****ter is right next to the door, how can they here flushing?

[KABOOKIE]

if cops are banging on a door and yelling, and unless the ****ter is right next to the door, how can they here flushing?


because cops are always right.

[Mongo]

because cops are always right.

Cops sign up to use their guns, and then come to you and cry because they're supposed to. There is no one more full of **** than a cop, except a cop on TV.

[sappstuf]

:D

No, it is:

:eek:

[stoops the eternal pimp]

They won't wanna bust in if I'm leaving a ****

[StoopTroup]

They won't wanna bust in if I'm leaving a ****

If you leave it in a nice box with a bow on it and it's sprayed with a little perfume....

I wonder if that would make for a really funny COPS?

[stoops the eternal pimp]

If they respond to it like my family does when I drop a corn pooper, they will flee from the house in terror

[OutlandTrophy]

The Police also have no obligation or duty to show up when you call 911

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

[OUMallen]

This thread used to be interesting, but like most threads on the SO, it's devolved into poop jokes.

[Sooner_Tuf]

And during voire dire, when the jury is polled, the State will definitely ask whether you think the homeowner is always allowed to use deadly force against someone who illegally and forcibly entered their home, and assuming you don't lie, you'll be making a return trip to the jury pool.

Not if the accused has a lawyer worth a ****. That question would never be allowed in absolute terms.

It's called jury selection not jury picking.

[Midtowner]

Not if the accused has a lawyer worth a ****. That question would never be allowed in absolute terms.

It's called jury selection not jury picking.

And on what grounds would defense counsel object, counselor?

Jury selection is the same thing as jury picking. You'd never make it onto a jury because your opinion that people are justified in breaking the law when they think that it's subjectively justifiable makes you a bad candidate to be on a jury.

[stoopified]

ANYBODY that enters my home illegally will be met by ALL necessary force to defend me and mine.I am a former police officer and I have no problem using deadly force on anyone including police who illegally enter my home.

[Midtowner]

Do you really think the police should get the benefit of a doubt 10 times out of 10? I don't. I hate how there have been police "accidentally" shoot somebody and get a slap on the wrist. A citizen who didn't know what was going on shoots a cop and gets locked away with the key thrown away. I say it's bull****.

No, but by using force, you are forcing the officer to escalate to the next level, and at some point that gets to deadly force. The police officer might not even actually know they're in your house unlawfully, so if you pull out your sidearm, they are squarely within their rights to blow your *** away, assuming their mistake was in good faith.

But any sort of court ruling creating public policy which encourages the use and escalation of force is bad.

Simply comply with the unlawful request, inform the officer that he's wrong, insist on looking at the warrant and pointing out the inadequacy, whatever, then sue their asses off at the earliest opportunity. Your remedy is in the courts, not at the barrel of a gun.

[MeMyself&Me]

The police officer might not even actually know they're in your house unlawfully...

The problem with that line of thought is that it's hypocritical at best. If I break the law, even if I don't know I'm breaking the law, I go to jail. Should be the same for the cops... if anything, they should be held to a higher standard because if anyone should know the law in a them vs a civy situation, it should be them.


In any case, here's how it should work. I can see how police might think a no-knock warrant is a good tactic and I wouldn't be the one to take it from them. BUT, I do think they need to assume some of the risk of such an action. If they do a no-knock warrant and bust a door in, they should expect that people will fight back. If an officer is injured in such an action, the people fighting back should be immune from prosecution for that specific action (but not for what the warrant was for or anything else if the warrant is legit) whether they be criminals or whether they be innocent. Also, the officers involved should be liable both criminally and civilly if a civilian is injured in such a raid that turns out to be a mistake.


Those of you that think the cops should be given the absolute benefit of the doubt no matter what need to think about whether it's better to have them doing whatever they think is best or whether it's better to have them making damned sure whatever they do is the right thing.

[jkjsooner]

ANYBODY that enters my home illegally will be met by ALL necessary force to defend me and mine.I am a former police officer and I have no problem using deadly force on anyone including police who illegally enter my home.

How do you know that they have illegally entered your home?

[OutlandTrophy]

did you let them in?

[jkjsooner]

BUT, I do think they need to assume some of the risk of such an action. If they do a no-knock warrant and bust a door in, they should expect that people will fight back. If an officer is injured in such an action, the people fighting back should be immune from prosecution for that specific action.

I agree if something happens before the resident has an opportunity to recognize that it is the police. It would have to be reasonable to conclude that the homeowner was attempting to protect his family and property from what he believed was a normal home invasion.

On the other hand we don't want to make it too easy for the bad guys to get an automatic pass to shoot at officers.

I believe police generally yell "POLICE!" several times while exercising a no-knock warrant. Maybe they don't do so when drugs are involved as it only takes a second to flush them. Either way, the circumstances better be confusing and chaotic adn the resistence better be almost immediate otherwise the "I didn't know it was a cop" excuse wouldn't fly.

Anyway, I do agree that there should be some protection for the resident here.


One complicating factor are the laws about someone getting killed during the commission of a felony. Even if you didn't directly contribute to the person's death, if someone dies during the commission of a felony you are responsible. So if you're a drug dealer no matter what you thought was going on in the middle of the night, the law isn't going to protect you.

[MeMyself&Me]

I believe police generally yell "POLICE!" several times while exercising a no-knock warrant.

I am sure they do. Doesn't mean that's what you hear. They are ready and alert for the raid... you aren't. They should be held to a higher standard of accountability in this matter. They better be damned sure they are right. That's how it should be.

[85Sooner]

Any one who agrees with this decision for any reason is a ***** Communist and ought to be escorted out of this country. I don't give a rats *** about bastardized law. Any lawyer who agrees with this decision get in the firing line. We are starting to create a police state and I respect MOST of our officers. Come to my house un-announced and your kids are going to be very sad tomorrow. There is a line and that line will NOT be erased by any judge.

[Sooner_Tuf]

And on what grounds would defense counsel object, counselor?

Jury selection is the same thing as jury picking. You'd never make it onto a jury because your opinion that people are justified in breaking the law when they think that it's subjectively justifiable makes you a bad candidate to be on a jury.

Well first of all your question is terrible - "you think the homeowner is always allowed to use deadly force against someone who illegally and forcibly entered their home".

You are asking a question that makes the assumption that the police entered illegally. I pray to god you aren't a trial attorney.

If you are maybe you should pick up a copy of JuryQuest. If that is out of reach maybe your mom will float you ten bucks for iJuror. :D

[Sooner_Tuf]

I am sure they do. Doesn't mean that's what you hear. They are ready and alert for the raid... you aren't. They should be held to a higher standard of accountability in this matter. They better be damned sure they are right. That's how it should be.

It also doesn't discount the fact that criminals also frequently pose as other people. It is not a stretch to think that someone other than Police might yell Police after kicking your door in.

One day the are going to make a mistake on the wrong house and learn what belt fed means.

[MeMyself&Me]

It also doesn't discount the fact that criminals also frequently pose as other people. It is not a stretch to think that someone other than Police might yell Police after kicking your door in.

One day the are going to make a mistake on the wrong house and learn what belt fed means.

LOL, I actually thought of that just moments before seeing your post. See 'reason for edit'.


Really though, I'm a strong supporter of the police and what they do. Two of my best friends are police officers. We haven't discussed this but I would be shocked if they didn't feel the same way.

I'm not against no-knock/raid type warrant/arrests. Just that I think the Police should not get a free pass here. They are pushing the lines when it comes to search and seizure when they do it and they better be damned sure they are right or there should be consequences.

[SCOUT]

I fall on the side of the homeowner. I also should point out that I am usually someone who errs on the side of police. They have a very difficult job and need help in doing it.

On this issue though, I think it is too far. I have seen several posters make comments like, 'the police don't know...' That is too far for me.

Look at the other perspective. I am a law abiding person sleeping in my own home. I have no reason to expect the police and any intrusion on their part would be beyond ordinary.

The door bursts open out of the complete blue with armed men screaming that they are the police. In that circumstance I am supposed to understand that they are who they say they are, process that they have a mistaken warrant, submit to their demands, and know that (if I live) I will have my day in court and this will all be sorted out properly?

I don't think so.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I fall on the side of the homeowner. I also should point out that I am usually someone who errs on the side of police. They have a very difficult job and need help in doing it.

On this issue though, I think it is too far. I have seen several posters make comments like, 'the police don't know...' That is too far for me.

Look at the other perspective. I am a law abiding person sleeping in my own home. I have no reason to expect the police and any intrusion on their part would be beyond ordinary.

The door bursts open out of the complete blue with armed men screaming that they are the police. In that circumstance I am supposed to understand that they are who they say they are, process that they have a mistaken warrant, submit to their demands, and know that (if I live) I will have my day in court and this will all be sorted out properly?

I don't think so.They are paving the way for weapons confiscation. We are in scary times.

[SoonerProphet]

"The right to protect oneself and one’s property against unlawful entry is the hallmark of any free civilization. Conversely, it is the hallmark of a totalitarian police state when government goons have the authority to go stomping around on private property without oversight of a judicious, impartial court."

http://www.sovereignman.com/expat/indiana-supreme-court-dispenses-with-magna-carta-constitution

[delhalew]

They are paving the way for weapons confiscation. We are in scary times.

If you think this guy is crazy, you are a deluded moron. Who would have thought those useless hippies were on to something, when they warned that the war on drugs would produce a police state. Our law enforcement are addicted to the money they get from drug crime arrest and seizures. They need to find a way to expand it.

Officials have been looking for a way to flush the 4th amendment for years. Who knew it would be so easy.

These things get racheted up a little a t a time, until it's too late. Remember when SWAT teams were for bank robberies and hostage situations? Now the stormtroopers bust in your door...TO SERVE A WARRANT.

It's shame we didn't hit the streets in outrage, when the first traffic camera went up. Now in Britain, the only place your not under surveillance is the toilet.

Some of you make me sick. Any more the concept of a slippery slope is some kind of joke. Well, no worries, we have rolled halfway down the hill, and the bottom is fast approaching.

Just wait till the abolishment of illegal search and seizure meets anti-terrorism. Wait till you see a curious change in the targets i.e. anyone who feels treated unfairly by the government. Un****ingbelievable.

[Midtowner]

...

[Caboose]

If you think this guy is crazy, you are a deluded moron. Who would have thought those useless hippies were on to something, when they warned that the war on drugs would produce a police state. Our law enforcement are addicted to the money they get from drug crime arrest and seizures. They need to find a way to expand it.

Officials have been looking for a way to flush the 4th amendment for years. Who knew it would be so easy.

These things get racheted up a little a t a time, until it's too late. Remember when SWAT teams were for bank robberies and hostage situations? Now the stormtroopers bust in your door...TO SERVE A WARRANT.

It's shame we didn't hit the streets in outrage, when the first traffic camera went up. Now in Britain, the only place your not under surveillance is the toilet.

Some of you make me sick. Any more the concept of a slippery slope is some kind of joke. Well, no worries, we have rolled halfway down the hill, and the bottom is fast approaching.

Just wait till the abolishment of illegal search and seizure meets anti-terrorism. Wait till you see a curious change in the targets i.e. anyone who feels treated unfairly by the government. Un****ingbelievable.

It is amazing how much freedom people are willing to give up for the illusion of a little security.

[delhalew]

By the way, the main story on CNN today will be Ahnold breaking up with his Kennedy.

I assume FOX will continue to delve into the lovers quarrel between Newt and Paul Ryan.

Nothing to see here. You weren't free anyway.

[pphilfran]

I wanna make sure I got this right...

Some of ya don't think it was proper for the cops to beat the door down after the drug sting....

Some of ya think it is wise to get into a shootout with a swat squad that was serving a warrant at the incorrect address...

Just looking for clarification...

[SoonerProphet]

I wanna make sure I got this right...

Some of ya don't think it was proper for the cops to beat the door down after the drug sting....

Some of ya think it is wise to get into a shootout with a swat squad that was serving a warrant at the incorrect address...

Just looking for clarification...

Yeah, that is exactly what we are saying, keen observer of details I see.

[yermom]

I wanna make sure I got this right...

Some of ya don't think it was proper for the cops to beat the door down after the drug sting....

Some of ya think it is wise to get into a shootout with a swat squad that was serving a warrant at the incorrect address...

Just looking for clarification...

i don't think either of those are quite describing the issue

[delhalew]

I wanna make sure I got this right...

Some of ya don't think it was proper for the cops to beat the door down after the drug sting....

Some of ya think it is wise to get into a shootout with a swat squad that was serving a warrant at the incorrect address...

Just looking for clarification...

What are you asking? Does swat team have a properly attained warrant?

Wise? Did my door just get busted in without warning? were my children just endangered?

The real problem here is that ANY of you can imagine a scenario in which this is acceptable.

[pphilfran]

W got a couple of different situations...

I am not saying it is an acceptable situation to have the cops beat down the door to the wrong house...I just question the smarts of having a shootout with a swat squad...

After the drug sting the police followed the guy home and when no one answered they beat the door down..I ain't go no problem with that...

The original posting is about the domestic fight...the couple were arguing..cops were called...couple went inside...followed by the police...now, before I can make a decision I need to know if the argument was still taking place in front of the police...

I am just saying that right or wrong yo do what the police command...otherwise you risk getting you azz stomped...or worse..

Then sue their azz....

[delhalew]

W got a couple of different situations...

I am not saying it is an acceptable situation to have the cops beat down the door to the wrong house...I just question the smarts of having a shootout with a swat squad...

After the drug sting the police followed the guy home and when no one answered they beat the door down..I ain't go no problem with that...

The original posting is about the domestic fight...the couple were arguing..cops were called...couple went inside...followed by the police...now, before I can make a decision I need to know if the argument was still taking place in front of the police...

I am just saying that right or wrong yo do what the police command...otherwise you risk getting you azz stomped...or worse..

Then sue their azz....

Then you are as much the problem as a greedy and over-reaching police force.

It's really not even a debate. Either you believe in a free society, or you are ok with living under the yolk of an oppressive government.

You would think we would all know that you can't give an inch, unless you want them to take a mile.

This is simple **** people. Government only knows how to grow. They can only grow by exerting more power over you.

Some of you act like being found innocent after your civil rights are trampled is A ok...

[yermom]

or after you know, they shoot you

[sanantoniosooner]

You can shoot at the government if you like.

I think they have more ammo though. Even more than the bunker types around here.

[delhalew]

You can shoot at the government if you like.

I think they have more ammo though. Even more than the bunker types around here.

Take another swipe at missing the ****ing point in a more stupendous manner.

[delhalew]

You can shoot at the government if you like.

I think they have more ammo though. Even more than the bunker types around here.

There is one important thing about this. Property seizures over the years have been very good to the police. Small towns with dozens of officers in new cruisers with decommissioned weapons from our military.

When they strap on their boots like they are going to war, who is it they are going to war with?

[sanantoniosooner]

Point it......somebody is just waiting for someone to cross a line so they can bust a cap in them. And the government has more caps.

[yermom]

i'm sure delahew is fapping at the thought of SWAT teams breaking down his door...

[delhalew]

i'm sure delahew is fapping at the thought of SWAT teams breaking down his door...

Seriously, after my rights are trampled, and my family is terrorized (at best), I get to die or be held on murder charges...awesome.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Oh and don't forget that the police get to rape your family too!

[OUMallen]

CROWN POINT, Ind. – According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.

[delhalew]

CROWN POINT, Ind. – According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.

I heard about this. Guys like this are exactly why we are supposed to have restrictions on our LEO's.

[MR2-Sooner86]

What I don't get is some on this board cried "Lied about WMDs!" yet have no problem with this ruling. So the government lies about one thing but is honest in another?

To quote George Carlin, "I never ever trust anything the government says." Some may call me crazy or a moon-bat, I call it critical thinking.

Remember folks, the state is never wrong and is always justified in it's actions.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rWv20AgRpfQ/TOyKFPtJ-QI/AAAAAAAAE6c/d8gd2i0GbdI/s1600/ruby-ridge-uhauls-helicopters.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eMe_z1cIcWM/TbB9hD4hwII/AAAAAAAAADE/7rIpg3HY9oI/s1600/tanks1.jpg

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2010/2/19/1266607624275/Elian-Gonzalez-held-by-Do-001.jpg

They are never wrong, never kill unless absolutely needed, and are always, always on your side to help you in anyway possible.

As for the person who said, "Don't fight the government they have more guns!"

Who do you think gave them the money to buy those guns slick?

[GKeeper316]

WE DO NOT LIVE IN GERMANY IN 1935! THIS IS AMERICA! HAVE WE BECOME SO DETACHED FROM THOSE WHO FOUGHT AND DIED TO GIVE US AND PROTECT THESE RIGHTS THAT WE'D JUST FORGET WE EVER WANTED THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE????

[Caboose]

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

- Benjamin Franklin



Police are allowed to kick your door in, kill you, and terrorize your family... to "protect" us from the possibility that someone might have a joint.


Sorry Ben....you would be so ashamed of what we have become.

[delhalew]

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

- Benjamin Franklin



Police are allowed to kick your door in, kill you, and terrorize your family... to "protect" us from the possibility that someone might have a joint.


Sorry Ben....you would be so ashamed of what we have become.

If you like that one, how about...
"A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson.

[sanantoniosooner]

As for the person who said, "Don't fight the government they have more guns!"

Who do you think gave them the money to buy those guns slick?

I know this is tough to understand, but getting in a gun fight with someone who out mans you, has more weapons, and carries a badge isn't that smart.

My dad used to tell me that you might be right, but you can be dead right.

If it ever happens, and I hope it doesn't...we'll remember how prophetic you were right before you went down in a blaze of glory.

[sanantoniosooner]

"I love you...you love me...we're a happy family" - Barney the Dinosaur

[delhalew]

"I love you...you love me...we're a happy family" - Barney the Dinosaur

This is not politics. The is fundamental, and all important. If you aim is to mellow it out, I don't aim to let you. This is something people should be pissed and scared about.

[sanantoniosooner]

This is not politics. The is fundamental, and all important. If you aim is to mellow it out, I don't aim to let you. This is something people should be pissed and scared about.

have at it.

I'm not interested in getting pissed or scared. If crap like this happens, there should be a price paid for it. But I'm not getting in a shootout that I know will result in my death.

[delhalew]

have at it.

I'm not interested in getting pissed or scared. If crap like this happens, there should be a price paid for it. But I'm not getting in a shootout that I know will result in my death.

How are you still stuck on the least important angle of this?

[sanantoniosooner]

Because that's where I joined the conversation.

If you want me to be outraged it will have to be over actual events, not the hypotheticals I saw earlier in the thread.

[MR2-Sooner86]

If you want me to be outraged it will have to be over actual events, not the hypotheticals I saw earlier in the thread.

Outraged now? (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154456)

[sanantoniosooner]

Somebody is dead. Facts need to come out. Sounds like incompetence.

[KABOOKIE]

I know this is tough to understand, but getting in a gun fight with someone who out mans you, has more weapons, and carries a badge isn't that smart.


Paul Revere disagrees.

[sanantoniosooner]

The colonies vs England =/= me vs swat team

[KABOOKIE]

The colonies vs England =/= me vs swat team

Oh yeah definitely not YOU vs. the Swat team. Paul Revere would chuckle at your timidness.

[sanantoniosooner]

And the swat would use your bunker for a bbq pit

[Sooner_Tuf]

And the swat would use your bunker for a bbq pit

Better that than to be the weenie at the roast.

[KABOOKIE]

And the swat would use your bunker for a bbq pit

And your cooperation would probably elevate you to neighborhood watch czar.

[sanantoniosooner]

Don't let me stand in the way of your martyrdom.

[KABOOKIE]

I don't expect cowards to stand for much.

[sanantoniosooner]

Look at you go, you button pushing fella. Try harder.:D

[GKeeper316]

Don't let me stand in the way of your martyrdom.

i'd rather die fighting for my right to breathe free than live in constant fear of the people appointed to keep the peace.

as should any american.

[sanantoniosooner]

Constant fear?

[GKeeper316]

Constant fear?

if they can ignore the bill of RIGHTS that were put in there to protect the people from the government, then yes... constant ****ing fear.

the only way they can do this **** is if they amend the constitution and repeal the fourth amendment.



The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and Warrants shall not be issued, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Can someone post a link to where the SWAT team kicked in the door and then raped someone?

[delhalew]

Can someone post a link to where the SWAT team kicked in the door and then raped someone?

I think the whole rape thing was theatre of the mind...unless you mean metaphorical rape.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

So now the SWAT teams are theatre folks!! Dear God...call your local senators!!

[OUMallen]

Can someone post a link to where the SWAT team kicked in the door and then raped someone?

Yeah not sure where the rape thing came into play :confused:

[OutlandTrophy]

as a bonus!

[Mongo]

I like rape