G&R Tactical
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 110

Thread: Indiana House approves bill covering police entering homes.

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,684
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand View Post
    I just wrote a long, well reasoned response as to why your reasonable degree is an unreasonable risk to my family, liberty and life- but I don't think it would persuade you. Thanks for your service as a LEO, but it may be time for you try seeing things from a law abiding citizen's view. I think LEOs look at these things as if they are about to serve a warrant on a known drug dealer, and citizens see it as they, being totally innocent, get their home assaulted. That is two different viewpoints of two different scenarios being talked about as if they were one.
    Please do not take this in the incorrect manner.

    Do you believe police officers were born with a badge on their chest?
    Check out my flickr page for pix!


    For just as mere life is not victory,
    Mere death is not defeat;


    Chief developer for V Development Group.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Somewhere between Nevada and Colorado
    Posts
    1,008
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kwelz View Post
    It is 3AM. You, like me are not a criminal and you know it. Your hear a loud crash and somebody shouting they are police enter your home. What are you going to do?
    A: Hope that they really are police hitting the wrong house and lay down while your dog is shot and your family terrified.

    B: Grab your HG/Carbine and clear the house for threats while securing your family?
    B- Anyone crashing through my door at 0300 hrs will be met with fierce resistance.

    On that note, I have personally investigated aggravated burglaries ("home invasion") where the suspects announced themselves as police and wore police type clothing. This is very prevalent in the South West with the Mexican Cartels. The kicker here is the "victims" are rarely innocent (usually drug related).

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    6,141
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Voodoo_Man View Post
    While the bold section may seem wrong, it has to be done this way. Settling things in a gunfight when they could be solved peacefully through court is unacceptable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Voodoo_Man View Post
    C: Call 911 and have them verify they are actually police officers entering my home while taking a firing position.

    Killing LEO's should not be on anyone's "might have to" list.
    Quote Originally Posted by Voodoo_Man View Post
    Police officers did not take the job to get killed. The badge is not a death sentence.

    Unfair to the homeowner who, hypothetically, shot and killed someone he had knew to be a police officer to a reasonable degree, or to the dead police officer?
    I'm sorry, but until I review your credentials and the warrant you're serving, I do not in fact know to a reasonable degree that you are in fact a police officer with legal authority to enter my private dwelling. That's kinda hard to do when you lead with a Halligan tool and an M4.

    Are you a LEO? I ask because it helps to frame the response. I'm a LEO AND a citizen. I think what we're seeing here is backlash that goes all the way back to the Ruby Ridge and Waco raids. Lately there seems to be a rash of reports regarding suspect raid planning, all the way to raiding the wrong addresses. This is a pressure cooker subject. When the pressure gets high enough, something's gotta give.

    A point to consider is John Stossel's recent report on "too many laws". It highlighted raids that were obviously over the top, to include agents pointing guns at unarmed, compliant people. Where I come from, that's aggravated assault. Further that with laws that allow the police to lie to the people, but the people can't legally do the same. Other reports of citizens being arrested for video taping the police from their own property and in no way interfering with the law enforcement operation, and 18 states where it is illegal to record the police, but the police can record the people. Then you add in government meetings that are in direct violation of the Open Records Act and LE agencies telling citizens and other LE agencies to "file a FOIA request" for information pertinent to their own jurisdiction and rights.

    All this adds up to a distrust of the government and it's LE agencies. So, how did it come to this? Does a police officer automatically deserve to be trusted with your life and your property and your rights, just because he has a badge? The short answer is no. Where the disconnect comes from are entrenched and embattled agencies that don't remember their primary mission, which is the safety and security of it's own community. Too many police officers think goal #1 is to arrest someone and send them to prison. I didn't say a majority, just too many.

    When an agency makes a mistake, it turtles up and sometimes even lashes out at it's critics. If you plan a raid and you hit the wrong address, you're in deep shit. Do you accept your culpability and renounce your qualified immunity? No. You get told by the agency lawyers to shut your mouth and they wage a campaign designed to reduce the liability of the agency. This doesn't always happen at every agency, but it does happen, so you get the picture.

    Now, let's say you're Joe Blow who possibly commits a felony a week and never has a clue that it happened, because the law is pig ignorant. Now, let's say you've watched the 6pm news every night and seen several reports over the past few months about armed robbers posing as police to steal gun collections (happened in my jurisdiction). Suddenly, it's zero dark thirty and you're awakened to hear a loud crash and people yelling in your home. You're groggy, scared and fight or flight dumps the adrenaline into your bloodstream. You grab your HD carbine and suddenly, you see a man wearing blue jeans, a thigh holster and a dark jacket wielding a gun in the hallway. You react and defend your home, because there's no reasonable explanation as to why the police would be there, because you're not a criminal. You shoot him and his fellow officers light you up. You survive (barely), only to finds that the police are saying you're one step removed from Charles Manson and now you're being charged with murder, along with a long list of lesser crimes that amount to what is essentially a "kitchen sink" indictment. You have to ask yourself, "How did this happen?".

    I'm not saying police shouldn't conduct raids, but I think they've been used in far too many instances where they shouldn't. The local Sheriff pretty much told the ATF that he could go to the Branch Davidian compound and get David Koresh to come out and talk. He also told them they could simply wait and he would come to town, where they could arrest him. But that wasn't what they wanted. Same for Ruby Ridge. The ATF wanted Randy Weaver as an informant, so they convinced him to break the law where he had no intent to do so. When he told them where to go, the raid was a "show" to prove that they were bigger than him and he should "play ball".

    Jose Guerena could have easily been picked up at the Arasco mine where he worked after the end of his graveyard shift. Yet PCSO elected to raid his home when he could reasonably be expected to be asleep. After they killed him, they've done nothing but obstruct and obfuscate the investigation of the raid itself.

    Now you have the Indiana State Supreme Court doing a 180 on a law that dates back to the Magna Carta. The lead Justice states:
    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.
    He's saying that if an officer commits a criminal act against you, you have no recourse under criminal law (qualified immunity), you cannot resist this unlawful act and your only recourse is to pursue a civil case, IF you have the means to do so. Seriously? WTF???

    I will not argue the law's right to enter the premises in each of the aforementioned cases. However, one common thread runs through all of them. In none of those cases did the need of the law to enter, outweigh the safety of the unarmed non-combatants who had broken no laws. The use of SWAT style raids in serving warrants is OUT OF CONTROL. Under the same circumstances, meaning criminals mixed with unarmed civilians, SWAT would NEVER storm a building with armed hold up men or armed and barricaded suspects, unless the lives of the innocent civilians were in immediate danger. I'm sorry, but the need to secure evidence in a criminal case should NEVER take precedence over human lives. It's cowboy police work at it's worst.

    I realize that this means some drug dealers and bad guys will take longer to arrest. I realize that it will require more police resources, intel, planning, care and potential risk for the police to get the bad guys and be the hero of the day for making their community safer, but that's part of the job. This is a failure of police policy and administration to recognize a flaw in their SOP's and react accordingly. When you push it to the level that they did in Indiana, they shouldn't be surprised when lawmakers make that decision for them. Now, they've lost the respect of their community and a tool in their toolbox as a result. It's their fault, not the legislature's. It's their fault, not the citizens. It's their fault, not the court's. THEY are solely to blame for this. Now they've increased the risk to their own officers as a result. It's shameful that it's coming to this in America.

    As a LEO AND a citizen, I walk in two worlds. I never take one for granted when in the other. Sadly, I believe that some have. Let's hope more people don't have to die for this to change.
    Last edited by glocktogo; 03-05-12 at 00:45.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,361
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    The answer is to not screw up as an LEO and raid the wrong house, or to conduct raids when no raid is necessary to effect the arrest.

    Yes, it can be deadly for you. Screw ups can sometimes hurt.

    If I am a truck driver and I screw up, I may kill myself or someone else. If you are an LEO and screw up, you may kill yourself or someone else. So, don't screw up.

    You may have to be more careful in your planning and intel operations. You may have to be less sloppy in your work. That is part of the job. The more privileges you have, the more responsibility you have. LEOs have lots of privileges not afforded the average guy -- power to carry and use deadly force in more circumstances, power of arrest, etc. With that comes a lot more responsibility as well. If you screw up and come into someone's house you shouldn't be in, and they shoot at you and wound or kill you, it is YOUR fault for being in the guy's house in the first place. So, don't screw up.

    --
    formerly known as "eguns-com"
    M4Carbine required notice/disclaimer: I run eguns.com
    http://www.eguns.com/www.eguns.com/Closeouts.html
    "eguns.com" domain name for sale (not the webstore). Serious enquiries only.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    9,113
    Feedback Score
    0
    Well put glocktogo. Now I know what Bush felt like after giving a press conference with Tony Blair- "Uhm, what he said."
    I just did two lines of powdered wig powder, cranked up some Lee Greenwood, and recited the BoR. - Outlander Systems

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Somewhere between Nevada and Colorado
    Posts
    1,008
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by glocktogo View Post
    As a LEO AND a citizen, I walk in two worlds. I never take one for granted when in the other. Sadly, I believe that some have. Let's hope more people don't have to die for this to change.
    This is my thoughts too, and my concern.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,177
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Voodoo_Man View Post
    While the bold section may seem wrong, it has to be done this way. Settling things in a gunfight when they could be solved peacefully through court is unacceptable.
    nope.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Northern Colorado
    Posts
    3,307
    Feedback Score
    28 (100%)
    Bravo glocktogo, probably the best post Ive seen in the GD since Ive been here!


    Quote Originally Posted by Voodoo_Man View Post
    While the bold section may seem wrong, it has to be done this way. Settling things in a gunfight when they could be solved peacefully through court is unacceptable.

    Im sorry, but thats one of the worst posts Ive seen in the GD since Ive been here. I dont have a union at my back willing to pay for any mistake I make. The money for a civil tiral would ruin me. I wont sit by and possibly let my home and family be raped and pillaged because I may be able to solve it all ina few years in court. God gave me the right to defend myself if I am completely innocent.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,162
    Feedback Score
    0
    also what gocktogo said !!!!

    fact is if police are not above the law ? then they should be held accountable the same as anyone when it comes to my private property and home !!!!

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,417
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston_shooting

    I think she had the legal right to defend herself.... regardless if it was a badge on the other end of the barrel

    If I understand the castle doctrine correctly... the citizen has the legal right to defend themselves and their property from what they view as an unlawful intrusion/attack. Meaning if you are not served with a warrant and made aware of the intentions of those wishing to gain entry, legally you were not cognizant to the fact they were police officers and are safe from prosecution.

    The slippery slope comes when they do announce at 3am.... and you're gut tells you somethings not right and they may not be officers...

    perhaps this will curtail those illegally claiming to be police officers to gain entry into the house.... but it will also make things harder for those officers just trying to do their job....
    Last edited by Reagans Rascals; 03-05-12 at 05:06.
    When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.. - Ronald Reagan

    smoke and drink and screw..that's what I was born to do.. - Steel Panther

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •