View Full Version : Indiana House approves bill covering police entering homes.
Mods, please feel free to lock this thread the second it becomes an "Us Vs. Them" thread.
INDIANAPOLIS — Hoosiers could legally defend themselves against police officers who enter their home under a measure that the Indiana House approved on a 74-24 vote, moving it another step toward becoming law, on Thursday.
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/mar/01/indiana-house-approves-bill-covering-police-enteri/
Hoosiers, help me out here. The way I read this, pretty much anybody who disputes the legality of police entering their home could open fire on officers. Folks who do not understand (or agree with) probable cause or Citizens who may mistake an officer’s intent could challenge officers with a gun?
In 15 years on the job, I am hard pressed to remember a bad guy who actually thought I should be inside his/her home. Yes, I know- there have been and are bad cops out there unfortunately.
Just this week I was investigating a report of a male "casing" homes in an area experiencing a high amount of burglaries ("prowler"). I followed foot prints along the side of a house and into a backyard of what appeared to be an unoccupied home. The MO of the burglars had been to kick in back doors to gain entry into the home. Once in the back yard I was greeted by a resident that was beyond pissed that I was "snooping" in his yard, to the point I believe many younger officers may have drew a Taser or handgun on the guy.
Luckily, I was able to talk him out and explain what led me to his yard. Once he calmed down, it was determined it was the man’s brother, who had locked his key inside the house, looking for a way in. We then actually had a lengthy conversation about his rights, crime and-yes, guns. I left with a hand shake and he told me he had a new respect for his local PD, and that I am always welcome to watch his property. I still don't know why he was so defensive initially.
With the way this article reads, (assuming I was in IN) that same guy could have came out and opened fire on me. From his initial perspective, I did not have the right to be there.
I am all for “Stand Your Ground” and “Castle Doctrine”. Indiana Code Section “35-41-3-2 (b) A person: (1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and (2) does not have a duty to retreat; if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling”...Which is very similar to my state. I am also for citizens suing officers/departments who knowingly and legitimately violate people’s rights.
So I ask, is this article just written with a liberal slant? Do folks here believe this is good legislation? I am curious to hear others input on this.
Rep. Craig Fry, D-South Bend, said the bill “is going to cause people to die.”
“And it’s too late after somebody dies for a jury to sort it out. Somebody’s going to die, whether it’s a police officer or an individual who thinks a police officer is entering their home unlawfully. People are going to die,” he said.
Again, I do not want this becoming a LEO debate.
There has been a lot of debate on this. The law as it was approved does not cover you if you resist while committing a crime. Only if the officers actions are unlawful or unjustified.
It is important to understand the reason behind this. The Indiana Supreme court recently ruled that you are not allowed to resist the police under the current law even if they themselves are acting illegally. It is a ruling that shook the state. The Attorney general himself was telling police and citizens to ignore the ruling.
The way the ruling read the police could literally do anything to anyone and get away with it.
Voodoo_Man
03-04-12, 21:45
Sadly, I see this type of issue turning into a "watching the guy drown" type of situation.
This is not a open season on cops law, this is a right to resist unlawful entry, even against police. Cops bust into your house but dont announce who they are, how are you to know who is in your house. Law Abiding Citizens aren't going to go blasting every cop they see in their yard or house and it's not gonna change anything with criminals who would kill a cop anyways.
This all came about from a bullshit ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court that says you have no right to resist an unlawful, illegal entry into your home by cops. You have to let them arrest you, illegally, seize your legally owned possessions then fight it out later in court.
WRONG. This just solidifies what the 4th Amendment says, since it seems the Justice Dept has shit on the Bill of Rights and Constitution
Voodoo_Man
03-04-12, 21:47
This is not a open season on cops law, this is a right to resist unlawful entry, even against police. Cops bust into your house but dont announce who they are, how are you to know who is in your house. Law Abiding Citizens aren't going to go blasting every cop they see in their yard or house and it's not gonna change anything with criminals who would kill a cop anyways.
This all came about from a bullshit ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court that says you have no right to resist an unlawful, illegal entry into your home by cops. You have to let them arrest you, illegally, seize your legally owned possessions then fight it out later in court.
WRONG. This just solidifies what the 4th Amendment says, since it seems the Justice Dept has shit on the Bill of Rights and Constitution
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.
wrong. you enter my house, illegally, i dont care who you are.
Voodoo_Man
03-04-12, 21:53
wrong. you enter my house, illegally, i dont care who you are.
In the very off chance you are actually in the wrong, someone is dead...?
Seems acceptable to you?
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.
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?
Voodoo_Man
03-04-12, 21:56
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?
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.
Also here is a story about one of the rulings that set all this in motion.
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html
I see the arguement here, and agree to a point.
But this is assuming that everybody the police encounters is a rational person.
It seems like this is the same logic as posted "Gun Free Zones". Obviously, the rational law-abiding citizen will obey, while criminals will not.
I can already see the loud drunk having an argument with his wife inside his home, techinically not illegal. It gets loud and neighbors call police reporting a "Domestic Violence" situation. Now officers, by law, are required to invetigate to determine if a DV crime has been committed. Sometimes these can be solved merely by telling Drunky Bob to be quiet, sleep it off and you are done.
But now, Drunky Bob knows he has done nothing wrong besides being a drunk asshole. Upset because the neighbors don't mind thier own business and the "cops have no right" to be at his home, he decides to let the police know about it..
You see where I am going. There are no easy answers to this one.
I see the arguement here, and agree to a point.
But this is assuming that everybody the police encounters is a rational person.
It seems like this is the same logic as posted "Gun Free Zones". Obviously, the rational law-abiding citizen will obey, while criminals will not.
I can already see the loud drunk having an argument with his wife inside his home, techinically not illegal. It gets loud and neighbors call police reporting a "Domestic Violence" situation. Now officers, by law, are required to invetigate to determine if a DV crime has been committed. Sometimes these can be solved merely by telling Drunky Bob to be quiet, sleep it off and you are done.
But now, Drunky Bob knows he has done nothing wrong besides being a drunk asshole. Upset because the neighbors don't mind thier own business and the "cops have no right" to be at his home, he decides to let the police know about it..
You see where I am going. There are no easy answers to this one.
Yeah but lets be honest. Drunk bob would probably do that anyway. It is kind of like saying that a Gun Free sign means there will be no guns. It only effects the good guys.
Voodoo_Man
03-04-12, 22:12
Yeah but lets be honest. Drunk bob would probably do that anyway. It is kind of like saying that a Gun Free sign means there will be no guns. It only effects the good guys.
Drunk Bob may do that, he may not. No point in speculation.
What this gives Drunk Bob is a "well I read on the news about this new law that said I can shoot cops if I believe they are in the wrong, and I believed they were in the wrong."
Who wins here? Not our constitutional rights and not that police officer's family.
Our Officers have a very dangerous job. But they should sign up knowing that. "Officer Safety" needs to start taking a back seat to personal liberty. Our officers putting themselves in these dangerous situations is why we pay them so well.
If it was supposed to be an easy job, we wouldn't honor them.
What this gives Drunk Bob is a "well I read on the news about this new law that said I can shoot cops if I believe they are in the wrong, and I believed they were in the wrong."
This was my point.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-04-12, 22:16
Poorly written article in the OP. It never really says what the law is exactly, and it seems the devil is in the details.
It does seem that the best way to deal with the SCoI ruling would be to go to SCotUS and get it overturned on 4th grounds?
I understand LEOs concern, but charging homeowners with murder because a raid goes to the wrong house seems unfair.
Voodoo_Man
03-04-12, 22:23
*sorry for the response tree*
Our Officers have a very dangerous job. But they should sign up knowing that. "Officer Safety" needs to start taking a back seat to personal liberty. Our officers putting themselves in these dangerous situations is why we pay them so well.
If it was supposed to be an easy job, we wouldn't honor them.
Police officers did not take the job to get killed. The badge is not a death sentence.
This was my point.
Reiteration ;)
Poorly written article in the OP. It never really says what the law is exactly, and it seems the devil is in the details.
It does seem that the best way to deal with the SCoI ruling would be to go to SCotUS and get it overturned on 4th grounds?
I understand LEOs concern, but charging homeowners with murder because a raid goes to the wrong house seems unfair.
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?
Here is a bit better written article. Including the exceptions, etc.
http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-bill-aims-to-reassure-homeowners-of-their-right-to-resist-unlawful-entry-20120222,0,3183659.column
One of the problems with the ISC ruling is that officers could do whatever they wanted. Literally under some interpretations and officer could,, while off duty, walk into your house if he wanted too. And if you resisted you went to jail.
Also note that this isn't just about shooting an killing someone. It is about someone trying to force their way into your house and you stopping them.
Our Officers have a very dangerous job. But they should sign up knowing that. "Officer Safety" needs to start taking a back seat to personal liberty. Our officers putting themselves in these dangerous situations is why we pay them so well.
If it was supposed to be an easy job, we wouldn't honor them.
I appreciate your POV, but I almost choked when I saw this. Three of my co-workers were shot in 2011. We have not had a raise in 5 years. The majority of us, myself included, have part-time jobs and fight tooth and nail over OT. I do not work for a "podunk" agency. We face these risks because it is our duty. My primary duty is to come home safe to my wife and kids. Sometimes feelings may get hurt to accomplish this.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-04-12, 22:45
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 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.
Voodoo_Man
03-04-12, 22:47
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?
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).
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.
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.
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. :(
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.
--
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-04-12, 23:58
Well put glocktogo. Now I know what Bush felt like after giving a press conference with Tony Blair- "Uhm, what he said."
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.
QuietShootr
03-05-12, 00:17
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.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
03-05-12, 01:35
Bravo glocktogo, probably the best post Ive seen in the GD since Ive been here!
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.
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 !!!!
Reagans Rascals
03-05-12, 03:56
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....
Littlelebowski
03-05-12, 08:40
Wow. I never thought I'd see an LEO post something like this on here. Thank you for not toeing the line and speaking your mind. Beer's on me if we ever meet. Well said, very well said.
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: 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. :(
QuietShootr
03-05-12, 08:45
Wow. I never thought I'd see an LEO post something like this on here. Thank you for not toeing the line and speaking your mind. Beer's on me if we ever meet. Well said, very well said.
****ing A right.
GeorgiaBoy
03-05-12, 08:57
Wow. I never thought I'd see an LEO post something like this on here. Thank you for not toeing the line and speaking your mind. Beer's on me if we ever meet. Well said, very well said.
+ 1
OUTSTANDING post, I wish I would see more like it.
What glocktogo said is exactly what I've been trying to get across to all the brainwashed morons the liberal media has created. This is not open season on cops.
No one is above the law, and, not to be bashing cops, but the LEO's, especially in my AO, all have the mentality that they are. They have this mentality of Do What I Say, Now, No Matter What, or I'm hauling you off to jail.
My dad has been with the county here for 31 years, he ran for Sheriff in 2010, and while losing by literally less than 30 votes, I got an inside look at the political spectrum and the mindset of the local LEO's and I was very ashamed. The LEO's that are still around from when dad got on aren't bad guys, it's the ones that have been on for less than 10 years, it's the post 9-11 mentality that is being brainwashed into them by the academy.
In the very off chance you are actually in the wrong, someone is dead...?
Seems acceptable to you?
So when a civilian breaks the law we all carry firearms and train to neutralize that threat and most even congratulate someone who does. When a sworn officer of the law who is SWORN TO PROTECT breaks the same laws they're sworn to uphold we're expected to just law down and let them do as they will? How is it any different? Shouldn't we just give the civilian or money and law down and hope they don't do anything permanent so that we may attempt to seek justice against them trough the court systems? Please help me understand how this is any different.
LE much like criminals needs to understand that there are lines when it comes to law abiding citizens and they better be DAMN sure they're ready before they take actions that could get them killed. IMO the whole kicking in a door thing has been used WAY too liberally as of late and looks to only increase as time goes on. I don't want to be made feel like a prisoner to LE when their duty is to serve and protect me the average citizen any more than I want to be made feel like a prisoner to criminals when I've done nothing to deserve such treatment in either instance.
You can say I'm turning 'us into them' because I'm not LE but it's them who's been turning 'us into them' for decades now. This here is just citizens responding.
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: 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. :(
I didn't read this post until after mine and he stated what I was thinking much better than I did. I would like to defer to this post and if more LEOs at every level had this mentality we wouldn't be having this conversation. Too many people at all levels that are too quick to endanger the citizens they're sworn to protect for BS reasons.
Here is the article that led me to ask the question; It is going around facebook.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/02/indiana-house-approves-bill-that-allows-homeowners-to-kill-police-officers/
Read the article and you will see why I asked the question. My original post contains a link I found in that article, as it is obvious the addictinginfo dot org website is libtarded.
Most folks outside of Indiana know nothing of this topic.
QuietShootr
03-05-12, 11:34
We already have no-duty-to-retreat, castle doctrine, and civil immunity from a justified defense shooting.
It seems to me the main objectors to this are the guys who think storming the wrong house (i.e. not the guy you're looking for) is something that should be met with total compliance and submission.
Well.. That's a point of view. It's a point of view that a lot of Hoosiers don't share, obviously.
I'm not a criminal, so ipso facto anyone battering my door down is committing a violent felony, regardless of who they work for. This law simply reaffirms that proposition.
Do your due diligence and make sure you're at the right damn house before you go all Bad Boys (which you should have been doing in the first place) and you'll suffer absolutely no effect at all from this law. A criminal who might be reasonably expected to expect a police raid does NOT have protection under this law.
Sorry...but if you're not dealing with a criminal, you have no powers to do anything that any other human being doesn't have. And that's the way it should be.
montanadave
03-05-12, 11:44
Just jumping on the bandwagon.
Glocktogo's post was one of the most well-reasoned, cogent assessments of a highly contentious and complicated problem I have read.
Much appreciated. Thank you for your time and effort in writing that contribution to this thread.
And it's comforting to know there are men wearing the uniform who think as you do.
Littlelebowski
03-05-12, 11:56
Here is the article that led me to ask the question; It is going around facebook.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/02/indiana-house-approves-bill-that-allows-homeowners-to-kill-police-officers/
Read the article and you will see why I asked the question. My original post contains a link I found in that article, as it is obvious the addictinginfo dot org website is libtarded.
Most folks outside of Indiana know nothing of this topic.
You'd think "liberals" would care about rights. Not so.
Our Officers have a very dangerous job. But they should sign up knowing that. "Officer Safety" needs to start taking a back seat to personal liberty. Our officers putting themselves in these dangerous situations is why we pay them so well.
If it was supposed to be an easy job, we wouldn't honor them.
We pay them well? News to me.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
03-05-12, 12:17
We pay them well? News to me.
Greeley, CO PD makes $52K a year, starting, for a 21 year old with no college. Benefits included. Thats pretty damn good pay for an entry position.
Compare that to my pay. I make $51K a year, but only when deployed, have 4 years of service and 4 promotions. When not deployed I make $46K a year, if I wasnt married I would make around $26K. Benefits included.
Here is a bit better written article. Including the exceptions, etc.
http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-bill-aims-to-reassure-homeowners-of-their-right-to-resist-unlawful-entry-20120222,0,3183659.column
One of the problems with the ISC ruling is that officers could do whatever they wanted. Literally under some interpretations and officer could,, while off duty, walk into your house if he wanted too. And if you resisted you went to jail.
Also note that this isn't just about shooting an killing someone. It is about someone trying to force their way into your house and you stopping them.
I missed this. This article makes IN SB1 make sense to me. Thanks for the link kwelz.
Now, please stop chasing tornadoes. Glad you are OK.
Littlelebowski
03-05-12, 12:28
We pay them well? News to me.
I'd really hate to see this thread get sidetracked into a police pay debate so can we agree that some cops get paid well, some do not, and some do OK?
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.
If I didn't know better you were at the table having beers with me and Oscar a couple of weeks ago discussing this same topic. The subject came up due to a marijuana drug bust raid and an officer got killed in the process. The rest of your post hits the nail right on the head as well.
Let's not sidetrack this thread with bickering about how much police officers get paid. So far it's been a very good discussion.
This is an example of a bad ruling leading to bad legislation. Personally, I am very likely to comply with officers raiding my home provided that they are identifying themselves and have some uniformed element. This is mainly due to my desire to prevent an avoidable violent confrontation with the police that might endanger my wife and child.
This is an example of a bad ruling leading to bad legislation. Personally, I am very likely to comply with officers raiding my home provided that they are identifying themselves and have some uniformed element. This is mainly due to my desire to prevent an avoidable violent confrontation with the police that might endanger my wife and child.
The uniformed element part is a big one for me. There have been several cases that I know of where the bad guys wear the nylon windbreaker "POLICE" jackets while attempting a break in yelling police. I do not think it's appropriate for LE to conduct raids wearing their undercover outfits or what appear to be civilian clothing.
In reality the bad dudes can just order up whatever they need to look like cops from the Blackhawk catalog anyways.
Here's an example from here in Las Vegas last year. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/jan/25/police-nab-5-accused-planning-las-vegas-home-invas/
The suspects brought equipment, such as police uniforms, BB guns and Tasers, to Las Vegas, according to the criminal complaint.
The uniformed element part is a big one for me. There have been several cases that I know of where the bad guys wear the nylon windbreaker "POLICE" jackets while attempting a break in yelling police. I do not think it's appropriate for LE to conduct raids wearing their undercover outfits or what appear to be civilian clothing.
In reality the bad dudes can just order up whatever they need to look like cops from the Blackhawk catalog anyways.
Here's an example from here in Las Vegas last year. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/jan/25/police-nab-5-accused-planning-las-vegas-home-invas/
Unless there is some evidence of imminent danger to occupants of a house, non-uniformed police should not be leading an assault on a home. This is just asking for trouble with mistaken identity. I have no problems with an plain clothes officer taking action if it is done to save the life of someone inside.
The_War_Wagon
03-05-12, 13:32
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?
I'm going to have to agree with this. I have 4 small, special needs children I'm responsible for. I even sleep downstairs in a barcalounger every night (due to some trouble we had when we first moved here) - 1911 at the ready, beside a cabinet full of loaded rifles. I will NOT hesistate to resist ANYTHING coming through my doors/windows after darkfall. Period.
Some may perceive this as bad legislation, but I believe that it is a culmination of the years of constant militarization of the police forces across the country.
Combine this with the deaths of citizens across the country in botched raids (due to bad addresses, shoddy surveillance and bad information) and one can understand how it has happened. Incidents like this;
http://www.azfamily.com/news/More-questions-surround-Marine-122749684.html
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/SWAT_team_kills_2_dogs_in_0731.html
http://www.lvrj.com/news/retired-lieutenant-demands-inquiry-into-las-vegas-police-shootings-140467923.html (Trevon Cole story).
Coupled with other hig profile incidents (Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc..) and the crop of current legislation at the federal level that many of us consider questionable and down right Orwellian I don't see it getting better.
I'm going to have to agree with this. I have 4 small, special needs children I'm responsible for. I even sleep downstairs in a barcalounger every night (due to some trouble we had when we first moved here) - 1911 at the ready, beside a cabinet full of loaded rifles. I will NOT hesistate to resist ANYTHING coming through my doors/windows after darkfall. Period.
Ok. You've chosen option B, but let's be a little more specific. While you are clearing your house of threats, you see a stack of armed men with flashlights, shields, body armor, and armed with various long weapons. They are moving down your hallway toward you and your family. Let's say that half of them are wearing the uniform of your local PD, and the rest are in civilian clothing but with POLICE clearly visible on their vests. They are yelling, "Police - search warrant" as they move toward you but you have not yet been seen.
Do you plan to fire on this men as they approach you?
It's a rock and a hard place situation. Most of us here are good guys and have no reason to be raided so we typically jump to the conclusion of "I'm shooting anybody gaining entry" type of stance, which is understandable.
The problem is determining if it's the good guys, with mistaken address or intel type of thing, or if it's the bad guys playing dress up in order to confuse and overwhelm you. I really don't think there's an easy answer to this and in fact it's been discussed here on M4C on several occasions. Here's a quick search (http://www.bing.com/search?q=home+invasion+police+uniform&FORM=Z7FD) that brings up numerous examples of bad guys impersonating the police.
If it's the bad guys coming in you have a legitimate chance to repel boarders and come out smelling like roses. If in fact it's the good guys you stand a good chance of being put in a casket and being labeled a "gun nut" and "cop killer" even if you're innocent of any crime and it's a mistaken identity type of thing. No matter what, innocent or not, if the police are coming in and see a gun you're going to be dodging bullets.
According to numerous sources there are over 50,000 SWAT type raids per year. Here is a very interesting map (http://www.cato.org/raidmap/) detailing locations and outcomes of some of those.
It's a rock and a hard place situation. Most of us here are good guys and have no reason to be raided so we typically jump to the conclusion of "I'm shooting anybody gaining entry" type of stance, which is understandable.
The problem is determining if it's the good guys, with mistaken address or intel type of thing, or if it's the bad guys playing dress up in order to confuse and overwhelm you. I really don't think there's an easy answer to this and in fact it's been discussed here on M4C on several occasions. Here's a quick search (http://www.bing.com/search?q=home+invasion+police+uniform&FORM=Z7FD) that brings up numerous examples of bad guys impersonating the police.
If it's the bad guys coming in you have a legitimate chance to repel boarders and come out smelling like roses. If in fact it's the good guys you stand a good chance of being put in a casket and being labeled a "gun nut" and "cop killer" even if you're innocent of any crime and it's a mistaken identity type of thing. No matter what, innocent or not, if the police are coming in and see a gun you're going to be dodging bullets.
According to numerous sources there are over 50,000 SWAT type raids per year. Here is a very interesting map (http://www.cato.org/raidmap/) detailing locations and outcomes of some of those.
I agree with this. I also agree with glocktogo and IG when they say that these military style raids on homes are occurring far too often, and this phenomenon represent a paradigm shift in the role of local police in our lives.
On the other hand, I'm unsettled by the notion that it is open season on anyone who attempts to enter a house - even if it can be reasonably determined that they are police.
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/ES/ES0001.2.html
(h) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any law enforcement officer if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:
(1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;
(2) prevent or terminate the law enforcement officer's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or
(3) prevent or terminate the law enforcement officer's unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.
(i) Notwithstanding subsection (h), a person is not justified in using force against a law enforcement officer if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes action by the law enforcement officer with intent to cause bodily injury to the law enforcement officer;
(3) the person has entered into combat with the law enforcement officer or is the initial aggressor, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the law enforcement officer the intent to do so and the law enforcement officer nevertheless continues or threatens to
continue unlawful action: or
(4) the person reasonably believes the law enforcement officer is:
(A) acting lawfully, or
(B) engaged in the lawful execution of the law enforcement officer's official duties.
(j) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a law enforcement officer who the person knows or reasonably should know is a law enforcement officer unless:
(1) the person reasonably believes that the law enforcement officer is:
(A) acting unlawfully; or
(B) not engaged in the execution of the officer's official duties; and
(2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/ES/ES0001.2.html
That's really ambiguous, and rather confusing, from my perspective.
QuietShootr
03-05-12, 15:23
Ok. You've chosen option B, but let's be a little more specific. While you are clearing your house of threats, you see a stack of armed men with flashlights, shields, body armor, and armed with various long weapons. They are moving down your hallway toward you and your family. Let's say that half of them are wearing the uniform of your local PD, and the rest are in civilian clothing but with POLICE clearly visible on their vests. They are yelling, "Police - search warrant" as they move toward you but you have not yet been seen.
Do you plan to fire on this men as they approach you?
Nice bait.
You will have at most a second or two to make that decision on the spot. Some people make their decisions in advance so as to avoid vapor lock at the moment of truth.
The logic runs like this: I am not a criminal of any description, I don't do drugs, hang around with anyone who does, or have any shady characters in my life. Therefore - no agency has any legitimate reason to break into my house, 'search warrant' or no. Being that both of those things are true, I may safely assume that armed men in my home are a threat to me and will be handled accordingly. I cannot afford to assume otherwise, since the consequences of submitting to armed felons need not be discussed at length. And, it's merely common sense that if a hypothetical unit is executing a hypothetical search warrant at the wrong house, they have no legal authority to be in that house at all and therefore may be treated as any other armed attacker. This law merely codifies that common-sense proposition.
It will probably have the unintended consequence of making agencies double and triple check they have the right place before they start blowing doors and throwing explosives. There is NO downside to that outcome.
Plus it reminds the agents of the state that as of right now, in Indiana, they do not have a free pass to do whatever they want and argue it in court later, at least within the parameters defined in this bill. It's not open season on cops - it's a defense to prosecution for defending yourself against cops operating outside of their legal authority. If you have a problem with that idea, I would say YOU are the problem they're trying to address.
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/ES/ES0001.2.html
That is a mess and it is going to create some real problems for LEO's.
QuietShootr
03-05-12, 15:29
This is an example of a bad ruling leading to bad legislation. Personally, I am very likely to comply with officers raiding my home provided that they are identifying themselves and have some uniformed element. This is mainly due to my desire to prevent an avoidable violent confrontation with the police that might endanger my wife and child.
And if they aren't the police, you might have just delivered your wife and child into the hands of armed killers/rapists/thugs.
And if they aren't the police, you might have just delivered your wife and child into the hands of armed killers/rapists/thugs.
You can read Irish's post about this situation - his thoughts mirror mine.
On the other hand, I'm unsettled by the notion that it is open season on anyone who attempts to enter a house - even if it can be reasonably determined that they are police.
And therein lies one of the rubs with all the no knock raids going on. It is perfectly reasonable for a law abiding person to conclude that people bashing his doors in at odd hours are not police no matter what they are saying or wearing. Given the fact that there have been many cases of thugs dressing up like cops giving the door kickers the benefit of the doubt is more likely to be a watch your wife get raped and killed sentence than anything else.
IMO this is to open season on cops; like blood flowing in the streets was to concealed carry. Unfounded fear mongering.
I also agree with iraqguns on why this has come to be. The over use of no knocks by every Tom Dick and Harry department coupled with a complete lack of responsibility for the few truly bad raids and an idiotic state SC ruling. Call me an optimist, but I firmly believe that the vast majority of raids down as they should. Against criminals needing to be put away. Unfortunately, the few errors made and the absolute lack of accountability when something does go wrong are all contributing factors.
The good news is that for the 99% good cops who take their jobs seriously and execute it professionally this is really a no event. Unless you believe that a much larger segment of these raids are unwarranted or illegal in some way this has no effect on your life.
Voodoo_Man
03-05-12, 15:59
There seems to be a little bit of hostility here.
I understand it, but just remember something guys. You are talking to another person, not a department or agency, a citizen just like you. Individual people have individual opinions and feelings on issues. Because you do not agree with me does not make you right and me wrong, it is simply a fact of life that we differ in opinions.
Many of you on here do not know me, nor do I care to make any introductions to those who would toss someone they do not know under a buss, ala arfcom GD style, so please limit your comments in the context in which the thread is proceeding.
If you dislike my viewpoints so much, by all means state so, but do it in a mature manner as to not give the impression you are bashing someone who differs in opinion from you.
I can also understand the concept of having a need to defend yourself from someone banging down your door, that is completely acceptable. Chances are that you, personally, will not be the target of such a botched warrant service. In the off chance you are in the wrong and did actually do something to warrant that type of attention, it is a complete abortion of the law to allow you to be able to commit violence legally against police officers, because you "thought they were wrong."
And therein lies one of the rubs with all the no knock raids going on. It is perfectly reasonable for a law abiding person to conclude that people bashing his doors in at odd hours are not police no matter what they are saying or wearing. Given the fact that there have been many cases of thugs dressing up like cops giving the door kickers the benefit of the doubt is more likely to be a watch your wife get raped and killed sentence than anything else.
IMO this is to open season on cops; like blood flowing in the streets was to concealed carry. Unfounded fear mongering.
I also agree with iraqguns on why this has come to be. The over use of no knocks by every Tom Dick and Harry department coupled with a complete lack of responsibility for the few truly bad raids and an idiotic state SC ruling. Call me an optimist, but I firmly believe that the vast majority of raids down as they should. Against criminals needing to be put away. Unfortunately, the few errors made and the absolute lack of accountability when something does go wrong are all contributing factors.
The good news is that for the 99% good cops who take their jobs seriously and execute it professionally this is really a no event. Unless you believe that a much larger segment of these raids are unwarranted or illegal in some way this has no effect on your life.
My hesitation is not for the no-knock night raids or raids where plain clothes officers are the breeching element (this is stupid). Instead, my concern is limited to the specific instance where UNIFORMED police are identified similar to the unfortunate case involving the Marine that IG provided. I've been very specific about this distinction in my posts and examples.
QuietShootr
03-05-12, 16:29
There seems to be a little bit of hostility here.
I understand it, but just remember something guys. You are talking to another person, not a department or agency, a citizen just like you. Individual people have individual opinions and feelings on issues. Because you do not agree with me does not make you right and me wrong, it is simply a fact of life that we differ in opinions.
Many of you on here do not know me, nor do I care to make any introductions to those who would toss someone they do not know under a buss, ala arfcom GD style, so please limit your comments in the context in which the thread is proceeding.
If you dislike my viewpoints so much, by all means state so, but do it in a mature manner as to not give the impression you are bashing someone who differs in opinion from you.
I can also understand the concept of having a need to defend yourself from someone banging down your door, that is completely acceptable. Chances are that you, personally, will not be the target of such a botched warrant service. In the off chance you are in the wrong and did actually do something to warrant that type of attention, it is a complete abortion of the law to allow you to be able to commit violence legally against police officers, because you "thought they were wrong."
That's not what the law says - in fact, it specifically says the opposite of that. Nowhere in the law does it say that someone can resist cops serving a legal warrant at the correct place. What it DOES say is that you had better have all your t's crossed and i's dotted before you physically enter a house, and if you're at the wrong place, the homeowner commits no crime by resisting your unlawful entry.
Deliberately trying to confuse those two situations in the mind of the reader is intellectually underhanded and emotionally manipulative.
Voodoo_Man
03-05-12, 16:51
That's not what the law says - in fact, it specifically says the opposite of that. Nowhere in the law does it say that someone can resist cops serving a legal warrant at the correct place. What it DOES say is that you had better have all your t's crossed and i's dotted before you physically enter a house, and if you're at the wrong place, the homeowner commits no crime by resisting your unlawful entry.
Deliberately trying to confuse those two situations in the mind of the reader is intellectually underhanded and emotionally manipulative.
Not what I am even remotely trying to do, just pointing out what members on here seem to think is OK.
I see where this is going anyway, thanks for your input - those who posted without bias or otherwise.
Unsubscribed.
That's not what the law says - in fact, it specifically says the opposite of that. Nowhere in the law does it say that someone can resist cops serving a legal warrant at the correct place. What it DOES say is that you had better have all your t's crossed and i's dotted before you physically enter a house, and if you're at the wrong place, the homeowner commits no crime by resisting your unlawful entry.
Deliberately trying to confuse those two situations in the mind of the reader is intellectually underhanded and emotionally manipulative.
I suppose that part of my concern is the assumption that some are making that any execution of a search warrant on their property must be unlawful since they have never committed a crime (that they know of). From what I can gather, these people would then resist this search warrant even when there is reasonable evidence that the police are not imposters. From what I can tell, this new law is being heralded as evidence that this is the most reasonable strategy.
IG posted an excellent example of what can happen in this line of thinking in the case of the Marine that was killed by a SWAT team that was executing a lawful (but ill-conceived) warrant. Keep in mind that the victim never committed a crime, had no reason to believe that he was under investigatio, and had a good reason to be concerned about take-over burglaries. Yet he was shot over 20 times and the members of the SWAT team were administratively cleared of wrong doing.
On the other hand, I've proposed an alternative strategy for the specific instances where there is reasonable certainty that the police are the surprise visitors. Granted it has some risks that you've articulated. But to each his own.
An Undocumented Worker
03-05-12, 19:58
I suppose that part of my concern is the assumption that some are making that any execution of a search warrant on their property must be unlawful since they have never committed a crime (that they know of). From what I can gather, these people would then resist this search warrant even when there is reasonable evidence that the police are not imposters. From what I can tell, this new law is being heralded as evidence that this is the most reasonable strategy.
IG posted an excellent example of what can happen in this line of thinking in the case of the Marine that was killed by a SWAT team that was executing a lawful (but ill-conceived) warrant. Keep in mind that the victim never committed a crime, had no reason to believe that he was under investigatio, and had a good reason to be concerned about take-over burglaries. Yet he was shot over 20 times and the members of the SWAT team were administratively cleared of wrong doing.
On the other hand, I've proposed an alternative strategy for the specific instances where there is reasonable certainty that the police are the surprise visitors. Granted it has some risks that you've articulated. But to each his own.
I can't speak for other people, but I do generally share most of the sentiments of people such as QuietShootr and general outlook of living a life that tries to avoid running afoul of the law. However should an officer show up with a searchwarrant, Hey I'll let him search to his hearts content.
I personally fear the concept of a no knock warrant as it appears to my perspective to mimic the mode of operation of criminals. I in no way shape or form ever want to be in the position of having used a firearm against a lawfully acting LEO.
However when things go bump in the night I'm going to investigate while armed, and with the proliferation of no knocks or similar methods of serving warrants I am afraid of being confused as a bad guy or confusing a good cop as a bad guy. Even with laws of the nature being discussed, this fear still exists. I think this fear exists because in years past cops and criminals went about their business in distinctly different manners, and at a subconscious level people identify friend or foe by their actions before the brain picks up on other cues such as badges, verbal commands etc.
It is the use of actions by police that can easily be mistaken for criminal activity that I beleive makes many law abiding citizens worry. One used to be able to reasonably believe anyone banging down the doors of your home (especially at night with no emergency going on) was there to do you harm. And that is why people have no problem saying
I will NOT hesistate to resist ANYTHING coming through my doors/windows after darkfall. Period. .
I personally wish the choice was that simple, but I know it's not and that causes me to lose some sleep occasionally.
IG posted an excellent example of what can happen in this line of thinking in the case of the Marine that was killed by a SWAT team that was executing a lawful (but ill-conceived) warrant. Keep in mind that the victim never committed a crime, had no reason to believe that he was under investigatio, and had a good reason to be concerned about take-over burglaries. Yet he was shot over 20 times and the members of the SWAT team were administratively cleared of wrong doing.
If the guy being raided does not realize he has committed some sort of crime, there is probably little reason to be doing a no-knock in the middle of the night.
Hopefully the LE departments will re-think their actions in light of this sort of law.
If you are doing a no-knock in the middle of the night because someone did not pay taxes or something where they don't consider themselves a criminal and don't realize they did something wrong, something is wrong.
--
If the guy being raided does not realize he has committed some sort of crime, there is probably little reason to be doing a no-knock in the middle of the night.
Hopefully the LE departments will re-think their actions in light of this sort of law.
If you are doing a no-knock in the middle of the night because someone did not pay taxes or something where they don't consider themselves a criminal and don't realize they did something wrong, something is wrong.
--
Again, I'm not talking about no-knock search warrants. I agree that those should be used under very limited circumstances. All of my comments, including the Jose Guerena case that IG cited, are limited to cases where the police have notified the occupants of their presence. In this case, released video tapes show that the police SWAT team attempted to make its presence known for 7 seconds before knocking down the door. Other attempts at notification included the sounding of a siren in the driveway of the Guerena's residence for 8 seconds prior to entry, as well as shouting "Police" and "Search Warrant" at the front door. Granted, the family denies hearing these notifications and there were reports of loud music from the neighbors that might have obstructed their hearing. However, there is little doubt that Mr. Guerena saw the uniforms, badges, and shields (all of which said POLICE), before raising a weapon at the officers with tragic results.
Now, if you want to be leery of two dudes in plain clothes claiming to be police who come through your window at midnight, I can't say that I blame you. However, I'm talking about the wisdom of challenging uniformed officers with a weapon because you think think there is no reason for them to be at your house - especially if your window is illuminated by a helicopter spotlight.
Again, I'm not talking about no-knock search warrants. I agree that those should be used under very limited circumstances. All of my comments, including the Jose Guerena case that IG cited, are limited to cases where the police have notified the occupants of their presence. In this case, released video tapes show that the police SWAT team attempted to make its presence known for 7 seconds before knocking down the door. Other attempts at notification included the sounding of a siren in the driveway of the Guerena's residence for 8 seconds prior to entry, as well as shouting "Police" and "Search Warrant" at the front door. Granted, the family denies hearing these notifications and there were reports of loud music from the neighbors that might have obstructed their hearing. However, there is little doubt that Mr. Guerena saw the uniforms, badges, and shields (all of which said POLICE), before raising a weapon at the officers with tragic results.
Now, if you want to be leery of two dudes in plain clothes claiming to be police who come through your door at midnight, I can't say that I blame you. However, I'm talking about the wisdom of challenging uniformed officers with a weapon because you think think there is no reason for them to be at your house - especially if your window is illuminated by a helicopter spotlight.
I was not specifically referring to that incident, but in real terms, 7 seconds is a no knock in practicality. And as you said, there are disputes on whether or not these things were heard, and if I am not expecting it, a horn in the driveway etc may not mean anything to me. And shouting out POLICE and SEARCH WARRANT as you bash down the door, even with a 7 second warning is basically a no knock for all practical purposes. It often takes me more than 7 seconds to get to my front door and if I am not expecting that sort of reception, I may think it is AT the neighbors, or something, or bad guys dressed as police.
Helicopter shining a light means nothing. There is no guarantee that I will notice that the light is from a helicopter unless I am expecting such a thing [ie, know I may be the target of such actions because I have been doing bad things] and peeking out the window etc.
And there have been publicized cases of people dressing up with police uniforms (or what appear to be police uniforms) and doing robberies, so seeing a uniform means nothing, if you are not aware you are a target. Not all the dress up robberies just use the yellow POLICE vests.
Hopefully these sorts of laws will make the police think about this sort of thing and not do these sorts of raids when they really aren't necessary in many cases.
==
The_War_Wagon
03-05-12, 21:35
Ok. You've chosen option B, but let's be a little more specific. While you are clearing your house of threats, you see a stack of armed men with flashlights, shields, body armor, and armed with various long weapons. They are moving down your hallway toward you and your family. Let's say that half of them are wearing the uniform of your local PD, and the rest are in civilian clothing but with POLICE clearly visible on their vests. They are yelling, "Police - search warrant" as they move toward you but you have not yet been seen.
Do you plan to fire on this men as they approach you?
I live in a small suburb with it's own PD, and know most EVERY officer personally, from the Chief on down (I have MOST of their business cards in my daytimer - two of them have sons in my sons' Cub Scout Pack). IF I recognize one of them, I probably WON'T...
I'd be very interested to hear from some LEO's on this forum about the extent to which department policies dictate how a search warrant is execution. I assume that these exist and its not as if officers can have "no-knock Thursdays" or "SWAT entry Saturdays."
I live in a small suburb with it's own PD, and know most EVERY officer personally, from the Chief on down (I have MOST of their business cards in my daytimer - two of them have sons in my sons' Cub Scout Pack). IF I recognize one of them, I probably WON'T...
Good choice. You probably saved yourself from a lot of heartache (pun intended). ;)
There seems to be a little bit of hostility here.
I understand it, but just remember something guys. You are talking to another person, not a department or agency, a citizen just like you. Individual people have individual opinions and feelings on issues. Because you do not agree with me does not make you right and me wrong, it is simply a fact of life that we differ in opinions.
Many of you on here do not know me, nor do I care to make any introductions to those who would toss someone they do not know under a buss, ala arfcom GD style, so please limit your comments in the context in which the thread is proceeding.
If you dislike my viewpoints so much, by all means state so, but do it in a mature manner as to not give the impression you are bashing someone who differs in opinion from you.
I can also understand the concept of having a need to defend yourself from someone banging down your door, that is completely acceptable. Chances are that you, personally, will not be the target of such a botched warrant service. In the off chance you are in the wrong and did actually do something to warrant that type of attention, it is a complete abortion of the law to allow you to be able to commit violence legally against police officers, because you "thought they were wrong."
I believe I asked you a simple question and still went on to articulate why I believe the language in your posts was inadequate to refute the new law. You are either ignoring what I wrote, or understand that your opinion differs despite being a poor one (not I didn't say "wrong").
You can check out if you like, but no one has attacked you here, just your line of reasoning.
I'd be very interested to hear from some LEO's on this forum about the extent to which department policies dictate how a search warrant is execution. I assume that these exist and its not as if officers can have "no-knock Thursdays" or "SWAT entry Saturdays."
My departmental policies comply with state laws regarding search warrants. Regular warrant service is from 6am to 10pm. No knock warrants may be served at any time, as well as exigent circumstance warrants (knock and announce where entry may be made without a response from the occupant). Further, cell phone warrants may be served "after the fact", meaning you can sign a form stating that a warrant will be procured within 24 hours and receive the requested data prior to getting the actual warrant in hand.
My department further promulgates warrant SOP's designed to minimize risk to occupants and deputies doing warrant service. CM warrants (county misdemeanor) and CF warrants (county felony) have separate SOP's. Our agency is CALEA certified, which means we follow nationally accepted standards for LE agencies, including operations standards. We are one of the ICE 287g accredited agencies and participate in the annual U.S. Marshall's Service "Operation Falcon" as well. My agency is also a member of an FBI Violent Gang Task Force and chairs our Urban Area Security Initiative working group.
Our operations are subject to a publicly available annual report. The 2011 report is currently being compiled and should be available in April. The 2010 report is available online for review here: http://www.tcso.org/tcsoweb/Forms/2010%20TCSO%20Annual%20Rept.pdf
Does that answer your question?
Glocktogo, it does. Thank you.
Further, cell phone warrants may be served "after the fact", meaning you can sign a form stating that a warrant will be procured within 24 hours and receive the requested data prior to getting the actual warrant in hand.
Do you mind explaining this in more detail? If I'm understanding you correctly you can act on intel as if there is a warrant by providing the needed information to the person signing off on the warrant, I'm assuming a Judge, and then the formality of getting an actual physical warrant is taken care of later.
I understand the need for this on occasions where you need to act immediately for the safety of a citizen or exigent circumstances dictate that you gain entry immediately but I'd like to better understand the process and ensure I'm not misinterpreting.
Do you mind explaining this in more detail? If I'm understanding you correctly you can act on intel as if there is a warrant by providing the needed information to the person signing off on the warrant, I'm assuming a Judge, and then the formality of getting an actual physical warrant is taken care of later.
I understand the need for this on occasions where you need to act immediately for the safety of a citizen or exigent circumstances dictate that you gain entry immediately but I'd like to better understand the process and ensure I'm not misinterpreting.
We have a similar system with the E-warrant.
An affidavit is completed and submitted electronically (e-mailed) to an on call District Judge. The judge reviews the facts, probable cause and intent. If approved, it is returned, printed and served.
This has replaced the "telephonic" warrant.
Exigent circumstances always apply (and will be articulated) when obtaining/serving these warrants.
I've read all these posts intently because this is exactly the kind of thing that causes me to lose sleep at night. Not just with regards to erroneous no-knock warrants but with any hypothetical "what-ifs" involving the need for me to potentially use a gun to protect my family and myself.
But the particularly frightening thing about this no-knock warrant situation is that it mimics too closely the techniques used by corrupt totalitarian governments our country has gone to war with, and beaten, in the past. The citizens of those countries had no defense against the police state entering their homes at any whim. That sort of mentality, where the government believes it can invade the privacy of its citizens with impunity, is seeping into the fabric of the country. The Indiana Supreme Court basically told its citizens they were at the mercy of the police force. That isn't tinfoil hat stuff. It happened. Granted Indiana is going about reversing this travesty. But what if it didn't?
Invasion of ones home by a criminal is, in my opinion, less of an crime than invasion of one's home by a government agency when not warranted. With a government agency there is no recourse. We are supposed to trust and believe that the government agencies have our best interests at heart. It is a betrayal of that very sacred trust that these sort of no-knock warrants have become.
Innocent until proven guilty. I hate scumbags as much or more than anyone. I am for the death sentence and believe that people should be on death row for only the amount of time it takes them to walk from the police car to the electric chair (gas chamber, etc...). But that's after the accused has had their day in court. No-knock warrants, designed to overcome the occupants of a home with fear and confusion have lead to many in-home deaths. Most were criminals, yes, but not convicted criminals. A search warrant shouldn't be a death warrant and too many of them end up this way.
The gratifying thing is hearing so many LEOs taking up the standard against the wrongful use of no-knocks. I often read LEOs saying something along the lines of, "My duty is to get home safely to my family at night." Fine. I mostly agree. I believe your duty is to uphold the law but I earnestly wish each and every LEO arrives home safely at the end of their shift after doing so. The people getting these visits from the police in the dark of night are already home with their family. They (if they are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens) should be able to feel safe and secure there.
At least from the police.
Do you mind explaining this in more detail? If I'm understanding you correctly you can act on intel as if there is a warrant by providing the needed information to the person signing off on the warrant, I'm assuming a Judge, and then the formality of getting an actual physical warrant is taken care of later.
I understand the need for this on occasions where you need to act immediately for the safety of a citizen or exigent circumstances dictate that you gain entry immediately but I'd like to better understand the process and ensure I'm not misinterpreting.
This:
We have a similar system with the E-warrant.
An affidavit is completed and submitted electronically (e-mailed) to an on call District Judge. The judge reviews the facts, probable cause and intent. If approved, it is returned, printed and served.
This has replaced the "telephonic" warrant.
Exigent circumstances always apply (and will be articulated) when obtaining/serving these warrants.
We also have MOU's with all the local cell service providers. We can sign a statement affirming that a warrant is forthcoming (within 24 hours), snap a photo and email it (or fax it) to the cell service provider and they will provide the trace or cell data as if they had the warrant in hand. This is used in exigent circumstances such as child kidnapping/endangerment, some very limited drug investigations and other immediate danger situations. The key is to use it sparingly, recognizing that this is a tool that can be revoked if misused.
We also have MOU's with all the local cell service providers. We can sign a statement affirming that a warrant is forthcoming (within 24 hours), snap a photo and email it (or fax it) to the cell service provider and they will provide the trace or cell data as if they had the warrant in hand. This is used in exigent circumstances such as child kidnapping/endangerment, some very limited drug investigations and other immediate danger situations. The key is to use it sparingly, recognizing that this is a tool that can be revoked if misused.
Thank you. Between yours and Oscar's posts I think I have a pretty firm grasp of how they're being used and I appreciate the info.
I often read LEOs saying something along the lines of, "My duty is to get home safely to my family at night." Fine. I mostly agree. I believe your duty is to uphold the law but I earnestly wish each and every LEO arrives home safely at the end of their shift after doing so.
{not directed at you jaydoc1}
Don't go barging in on people's homes and you will go home at the end of the day.
The intent of these sorts of laws is to get the police to think about and be responsible for their actions so hopefully they don't do the sorts of things that will mean they might not go home at night, and joe-citizen can rest easy in his own home.
The people getting these visits from the police in the dark of night are already home with their family. They (if they are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens) should be able to feel safe and secure there.
At least from the police.
Agreed.
This is used in exigent circumstances such as child kidnapping/endangerment, some very limited drug investigations and other immediate danger situations.
Please help me understand how the latter is anywhere near as pressing as the former. I can almost understand the need for such a device in the instance of child kidnapping/endangerment but have a hard time seeing why a drug dealer is a pressing issue that can't be resolved by normal channels. LE work is meant to be difficult and has checks and balances for a reason. I'm seeing too much of a shift by LE to thinking these checks and balances are 'dated' and keep them from doing good police work and the book needs to be rewritten to make their job easier. That doesn't sit well with me.
The key is to use it sparingly, recognizing that this is a tool that can be revoked if misused.
This could also be applied to lots of the tyrannical type laws we discuss on this forum. "Well, so long as it gets used sparingly & by those who truly care about their fellow man it's acceptable." The problem isn't how people such as yourself would utilize such laws it's the power it gives those NOT like yourself who could use it against the rights of citizens. A recent example is NDAA. Obama signed a statement saying his people wouldn't misuse it so who cares, right?
I've agreed with a LOT of what you've said but feel as though we may disagree with e-warrants and the like simply from the standpoint that anything that's done to make LE work easier tends to make life as a citizen a little more difficult/dangerous.
Please help me understand how the latter is anywhere near as pressing as the former. I can almost understand the need for such a device in the instance of child kidnapping/endangerment but have a hard time seeing why a drug dealer is a pressing issue that can't be resolved by normal channels. LE work is meant to be difficult and has checks and balances for a reason. I'm seeing too much of a shift by LE to thinking these checks and balances are 'dated' and keep them from doing good police work and the book needs to be rewritten to make their job easier. That doesn't sit well with me.
This could also be applied to lots of the tyrannical type laws we discuss on this forum. "Well, so long as it gets used sparingly & by those who truly care about their fellow man it's acceptable." The problem isn't how people such as yourself would utilize such laws it's the power it gives those NOT like yourself who could use it against the rights of citizens. A recent example is NDAA. Obama signed a statement saying his people wouldn't misuse it so who cares, right?
I've agreed with a LOT of what you've said but feel as though we may disagree with e-warrants and the like simply from the standpoint that anything that's done to make LE work easier tends to make life as a citizen a little more difficult/dangerous.
And I don't disagree with anything you posted here. I was merely pointing out our SOP's, as requested. FWIW, the e-warrants and MOU's are being used only for electronic tracking and surveillance under exigent circumstances, not for raids. Not ideal, but far less of a threat than conducting raids under those auspices. Their use on drug cases are very minimal, and occasionally exigent circumstances do crop up in that arena. Hope that clarifies my post a little.
QuietShootr
03-06-12, 15:22
And I don't disagree with anything you posted here. I was merely pointing out our SOP's, as requested. FWIW, the e-warrants and MOU's are being used only for electronic tracking and surveillance under exigent circumstances, not for raids. Not ideal, but far less of a threat than conducting raids under those auspices. Their use on drug cases are very minimal, and occasionally exigent circumstances do crop up in that arena. Hope that clarifies my post a little.
You can't be real, you're too goddamned reasonable.
SeriousStudent
03-06-12, 18:00
You can't be real, you're too goddamned reasonable.
I want him to run for judge.
And no, I'm not joking. I'll write a check for the campaign.
Along with Sheriff Mack becoming a Texas Congressman. ;)
Thanks guys. I was a hot shit, gung-ho type straight out of the Corps. I wanted to save the world and kill all the bad guys. Over time, I was fortunate to have some really good people that influenced me. Real "ride the river" types that understood the world was a harsh place, but not theirs to conquer. Willing to do what needed done, but more importantly, smart enough to recognize what didn't need done. All I can hope is to live up to their standards and if I'm lucky, pass it along to others.
Semper-Fi!
J.B.
And I don't disagree with anything you posted here. I was merely pointing out our SOP's, as requested. FWIW, the e-warrants and MOU's are being used only for electronic tracking and surveillance under exigent circumstances, not for raids. Not ideal, but far less of a threat than conducting raids under those auspices. Their use on drug cases are very minimal, and occasionally exigent circumstances do crop up in that arena. Hope that clarifies my post a little.
I appreciate the back and forth with you as you appear to be uniquely reasonable. I would keep that from your superiors that is a rare trait and they may ship you off in fear of losing their job to you. When I have conversations similar to this with my LE buddies it's always amazes me how we seem to agree on basics (pro Constitution, pro power lies with the people, pro states power, etc.) but when you get into the details they suddenly do a 180 on a specific topic even though it doesn't support their previous stance on the overall picture. I've learned to tread lightly on specifics (The Patriot Act, NDAA, e-Warrants, no-knock, yadda yadda yadda) with my LE buddies for this reason so I half expected you to reverse your stance when I pressed for clarification on your e-Warrant statement. Your take on these topics is certainly refreshing and if they were all as reasonable as you I wouldn't be as concerned about some of the recent laws as I am. The unfortunate part is you appear to be the exception in your field rather than the rule.
I appreciate the back and forth with you as you appear to be uniquely reasonable. I would keep that from your superiors that is a rare trait and they may ship you off in fear of losing their job to you. When I have conversations similar to this with my LE buddies it's always amazes me how we seem to agree on basics (pro Constitution, pro power lies with the people, pro states power, etc.) but when you get into the details they suddenly do a 180 on a specific topic even though it doesn't support their previous stance on the overall picture. I've learned to tread lightly on specifics (The Patriot Act, NDAA, e-Warrants, no-knock, yadda yadda yadda) with my LE buddies for this reason so I half expected you to reverse your stance when I pressed for clarification on your e-Warrant statement. Your take on these topics is certainly refreshing and if they were all as reasonable as you I wouldn't be as concerned about some of the recent laws as I am. The unfortunate part is you appear to be the exception in your field rather than the rule.
Well I hope I'm not all that unique, but I do carry a pocket Constitution, so I guess I'm suspect? :)
As for my superiors, My first time working with my previous Sgt. at this agency was a special event. He impressed me immediately by saying "We ain't here to hang paper on anyone. Let's let them have a good time and make sure everyone goes home in one piece."
Also here is a story about one of the rulings that set all this in motion.
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html
I don't know if anyone else bothered to read that article, I just did, but there's some very interesting stuff in it.
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.
Is this ****head still on the bench? This absolutely violates the 4th Amendment in every way possible and it's no wonder the citizens of Indiana are up in arms about this.
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.
That right there's just begging for a gun fight!
To me it seems like the pendulum is hitting on both ends of the spectrum with the old and new laws. I would also suggest that the judges and lawmakers in Indiana read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. With the ambiguous and confusing way things are written now there are going to be citizens and police getting hurt or possibly killed over this.
QuietShootr
03-07-12, 13:37
Well I hope I'm not all that unique, but I do carry a pocket Constitution, so I guess I'm suspect? :)
We wouldn't be having this conversation if THAT were true.
("He's so well spoken!"):jester:
I don't know if anyone else bothered to read that article, I just did, but there's some very interesting stuff in it.
Is this ****head still on the bench? This absolutely violates the 4th Amendment in every way possible and it's no wonder the citizens of Indiana are up in arms about this.
That right there's just begging for a gun fight!
To me it seems like the pendulum is hitting on both ends of the spectrum with the old and new laws. I would also suggest that the judges and lawmakers in Indiana read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. With the ambiguous and confusing way things are written now there are going to be citizens and police getting hurt or possibly killed over this.
I've often said that elected persons (legislators, judges, etc.) should be required to pass a test on the US Constitution and ethics before being allowed to perform the duties assigned. I had to as a LEO, so why shouldn't they? :(
Here's the actual bill.
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/ES/ES0001.2.html
This law doesn't contain anything that similar laws from other states don't. Its nothing to get up in arms about. This doesn't mean you can shoot at the police for entering you home should you think they shouldn't be there or are doing so unlawfully.
A person is justified in using reasonable force against any law enforcement officer if the person reasonably believes
The "reasonably believes" isn't if the actor thinks the action isn't lawful, but rather if a third party be it a judge, CA, and/or jury would consider the actor's beliefs reasonable.
And the big thing with all of this, is you HAVE TO be right. Not that you think you're right so its ok, but that you are right.
This isn't any different than the laws which cover use of force by law enforcement. A LEO is justified in using force against someone as long as they are right, if you're wrong then you're ****ed up.
All this law says is that if the police are acting unlawfully, and the actor has reasonable grounds to believe so, they (they actor) can't be held legally liable.
I saw nothing in the law effecting civil proceedings, which generally as use of deadly force go, require a higher standard of proof.
Here's the actual bill.
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/ES/ES0001.2.html
This law doesn't contain anything that similar laws from other states don't. Its nothing to get up in arms about. This doesn't mean you can shoot at the police for entering you home should you think they shouldn't be there or are doing so unlawfully.
The "reasonably believes" isn't if the actor thinks the action isn't lawful, but rather if a third party be it a judge, CA, and/or jury would consider the actor's beliefs reasonable.
And the big thing with all of this, is you HAVE TO be right. Not that you think you're right so its ok, but that you are right.
This isn't any different than the laws which cover use of force by law enforcement. A LEO is justified in using force against someone as long as they are right, if you're wrong then you're ****ed up.
All this law says is that if the police are acting unlawfully, and the actor has reasonable grounds to believe so, they (they actor) can't be held legally liable.
I saw nothing in the law effecting civil proceedings, which generally as use of deadly force go, require a higher standard of proof.
I may not be reading this right so bear with me, no coffee yet. What do you mean by you "have to be right"? Would this include "furtive movement" type of shootings where the actor isn't armed? Are they right then even without the presence of a weapon? How would Joe Citizen get treated for a furtive movement defense?
I'm not trying to split hairs or anything like that, I'm trying to gain a better understanding, and your post is a little confusing to me.
Meaning if you're wrong, or beliefs aren't found to be on "reasonable" grounds, you will go to prison.
This is true for anyone shooting someone, if they are LE or not.
The furtive gestures thing doesn't really factor into this. Generally, a furtive gesture by its self isn't enough of an indication to justify deadly force, it is held to the totality of circumstances test.
This law isn't as ground breaking or on the cutting edge as people are making it out to be.
I think a lot of people think anti-gov types will get a free pass for shooting a police officer should they enter their home. Not the case at all.
The entry/presence has to be illegal. Not that you think it could be, but the actions of the officers has to be determined to be illegal. There are many examples of circumstances police can enter your home w/o a warrant and have case law to support it.
The actor has to have "reasonable beliefs", which they can articulate, as to why he/she believes the entry/presence/action by police was illegal. A "**** the police" attitude, with "they're always harassing me" isn't going to cut it.
The other part of all of this is it gives the actor a defense. Where do you present your defense? Court. I think a lot of people, including cops, get twisted on this.
It isn't the job of the police to put people away. That is for the courts. The function of the police is to arrange the meeting between offenders and the court. Juries hold people accountable, not the police.
Again, this isn't anything ground breaking. Many other states have, as they should, similar laws.
bp7178 - Thanks for the additional input. Good discussion with you, glocktogo and several other dialed in posters in this thread without having a pissing match. Good stuff!
QuietShootr
03-09-12, 16:30
http://i453.photobucket.com/albums/qq253/rigmutton/orson-welles-clapping.gif
ETA: I've had cops on the internet, including a couple of moderators here, imply that there was no way I had any actual police for friends or that I might be a felon myself because I would resist a forcible attack on my house in the middle of the night.
To them, I say - my friends that are police are like THESE two guys, not like the typical internet RESPECK MAH AUTHORITAH police. Guys like this I'd follow into hell carrying a bucket of gasoline, if they're for real, and we need more of them.
Littlelebowski
03-09-12, 18:36
Thanks, Dave. Beverages on me next time we see each other.
It would be very interesting for jurisdictions to published data on the numbers and types of executed search warrants. Communities could then hold agencies (through their elected representatives) accountable to statistical outliers.
CMPD publishes annual crime statistics for my precinct, it should not be too hard to include this.
I can't believe I'm posting on the internet as nothing good will come from it... oh well.
Dave - Fantastic post and I completely agree with everything you've said from a citizen's perspective. I can assure you that lots of good will come from your post. You've reassured many freedom loving people on this forum that there are police out there who are progressing past the status quo that's endangered so many citizens and police alike.
This is by far the absolute best discussion I've ever seen between police and citizen members of this forum. Maybe M4C is maturing and moving past the status quo as well.
montanadave
03-10-12, 10:12
This is by far the absolute best discussion I've ever seen between police and citizen members of this forum. Maybe M4C is maturing and moving past the status quo as well.
Agreed. Very enlightening.
And reassuring.
What I find very interesting (and refreshing) is the tenor of this conversation. This same discussion is being (or was being) held on a knife forum with a large LEO following and is absolutely 100% the opposite. There is no reasonable dialogue at all and you can fairly feel the spittle flying from their lips and see the purple faces with veins sticking out on their necks and foreheads as the LEOs yell from their keyboards how these warrants are justified, officer safety is paramount, Indiana has lost its mind, and anyone who says differently is talking out of their ass.
It is essentially an us versus them conversation. The interesting thing there is that the tenor is decidedly reversed from most of the LEO discussions which have so often been shut down here. Namely civilians here being very antagonistic and unreasonable towards LEOs. In the other forum, the civilians asking reasonable questions and making reasonable points are being shouted down aggressively and sometimes threateningly. Very sad.
Here's an example:
Originally Posted by a non-LEO:
This thread makes me curious about this question: do LEOs feel that they should have the right to behave criminally in the name of law enforcement?
LEO Response:
This thread has left me disgusted. Before I knew and felt the bonds of Brotherhood I stood tall and accepted the oath to fight for you. To leave my blood upon the streets and risk even more. For you. I did it without even meeting or knowing you. I did it becuase it was right and just.
It's a shame because there could be just as good a dialogue as this thread has been with real information passed between the two interested groups but instead has been nothing but an emotional shouting match. I even tried to make some of the very cogent and reasonable points that Glock and Dave have made (without naming them or this forum, of course) and the LEO responses were both dismissive and offensive. That's when I became a lurker and posted no more.
Littlelebowski
03-10-12, 12:27
jaydoc, that guy is pathetic.
Armed invasion with perps masquerading as LEOs with warrant. (http://news.arlingtonva.us/pr/ava/crime-report-february-24-2012-229703.aspx)
I think tactical entries should only be used when necessary. I also don't think calling out is the way to do it for cases where evidence must be recovered. Can't make a possession with intent case w/o the possession part.
As opposed to calling someone out from their residence, I think a better way is through covert surveillance and a take down. Pick off the target when he makes a 2am cigarette run, and execute an entry when the residence is reasonably believed to be empty.
But, these situations have to be assessed in real time on a case-by-case basis.
On early morning get em while their sleeping hits...where do you keep your guns? By your bed. Why? So they are close when you hear a crash at 3am...
SeriousStudent
03-10-12, 13:11
Mr Pennington, thank you very much for taking the time to make that post.
And thank you for your service to our country as an LEO and a medic.
By far available resources factors into that, as well as the statutes you are working with along with the expectations of the prosecution side of the house.
Long term investigations are how you make big cases, but consume a lot of resources. Larger agencies, including federal entities, may have those resources, others may not. You can't half a budget and lay off a number of people and maintain a high level of service, including having resources to allocate to long term investigations.
What I find very interesting (and refreshing) is the tenor of this conversation. This same discussion is being (or was being) held on a knife forum with a large LEO following and is absolutely 100% the opposite. There is no reasonable dialogue at all and you can fairly feel the spittle flying from their lips and see the purple faces with veins sticking out on their necks and foreheads as the LEOs yell from their keyboards how these warrants are justified, officer safety is paramount, Indiana has lost its mind, and anyone who says differently is talking out of their ass.
It is essentially an us versus them conversation. The interesting thing there is that the tenor is decidedly reversed from most of the LEO discussions which have so often been shut down here. Namely civilians here being very antagonistic and unreasonable towards LEOs. In the other forum, the civilians asking reasonable questions and making reasonable points are being shouted down aggressively and sometimes threateningly. Very sad.
Here's an example:
It's a shame because there could be just as good a dialogue as this thread has been with real information passed between the two interested groups but instead has been nothing but an emotional shouting match. I even tried to make some of the very cogent and reasonable points that Glock and Dave have made (without naming them or this forum, of course) and the LEO responses were both dismissive and offensive. That's when I became a lurker and posted no more.
Sounds like they need to hear a different side. Feel free to re-post anything I've posted here. Anything that helps people analyze the situation critically is a good thing.
By far available resources factors into that, as well as the statutes you are working with along with the expectations of the prosecution side of the house.
Long term investigations are how you make big cases, but consume a lot of resources. Larger agencies, including federal entities, may have those resources, others may not. You can't half a budget and lay off a number of people and maintain a high level of service, including having resources to allocate to long term investigations.
Which is exactly why good governance is critical. It only takes a few bad decisions start the butterfly effect. Local government makes a decision to cut an essential service while continuing to provide a non-essential service. The community suffers and it drives away potential investors. Jobs stagnate and people start to leave. Tax revenues fall and additional services have to be cut. Eventually, basic services are curtailed, no new jobs, high unemployment, laid off police, higher crime rates, urban blight, etc., etc., etc.
In order to recover, some tough choices have to be made and unpopular decisions become essential to recovery. Unfortunately, no one seems willing to make tough decisions these days. :(
http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety/articles/5238269-Ind-bill-on-using-force-against-police-wins-approval/
On to the governor now.
Belmont31R
03-11-12, 21:08
Your occupation should not give you special ability to break the law the rest of us have to deal with. Part of the principles our system of law works on is that the law is applied equally to everyone, and just because our ID card says XYZ LE department doesn't give you the ability to break into someones home, and then say oops all the while holding the the homeowner responsible if you get shot because "you should have known" they were LEO's and not random thugs.
You either have valid reason to be in a home or do you don't. "Im an LEO" is not valid reason to be in someones home. We have laws in place that need to be followed, and rights that have to be respected. There is plenty of case law on this in SCOTUS it should not be an issue.
This article (http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/03/unarmed_man_shot_by_new_orlean.html) is a prime example of what we're talking about. A 20 year old young man, unarmed, lost his life due to the War On Drugs and a dried plant. The police officers were not in uniform and wore "raid jackets" in their plainclothes.
I'm not saying the kid was an angel and wasn't breaking the law. Let's not beat this to death or anything like that. I was reading the news and it caught my eye due to being closely related to this thread.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.