Reply With QuoteJesus, why do you think every Cop is ready to Waco your ass?
My concern would be that a warrant was being executed in good faith by the police officers and was later found to be the wrong address etc...Where does the fault lie then? Someone gets shot? Who's to blame. The dispatcher? The informant that gave bad intel? Say I'm executing a warrant on a known violent offender, he doesn't know that a warrant is going to be served at 2:45 AM and comes up shooting. He can claim that he was defending himself as he had no idea he was being targeted by the police and he just thought it was a home invasion. Right? Perps that are going to be busted aren't informed. That's the whole idea.Originally Posted by Ought Six
Jesus, why do you think every Cop is ready to Waco your ass?
Exactly, and the ones who may do it deliberately are an abberration compared to the Vast numbers who serve us all.
i brought up that exact scenario in a prior post on this thread.
----------'Who is to blame' does not seem to be the most important question.Where does the fault lie then? Someone gets shot? Who's to blame. The dispatcher? The informant that gave bad intel?
----------I understand the dangers. A lot of civil rights advocates think that no-knock warrants are an abomination. If there were no no-knock warrants, and LEOs had to serve the warrant at entry, there would be far fewer problems. But the SCotUS has blessed no-knock warrants and is unlikely to reverse their decision, so we are stuck with that outcome. Again, I am not seeing any good solutions here.Say I'm executing a warrant on a known violent offender, he doesn't know that a warrant is going to be served at 2:45 AM and comes up shooting. He can claim that he was defending himself as he had no idea he was being targeted by the police and he just thought it was a home invasion. Right? Perps that are going to be busted aren't informed. That's the whole idea.
Actually self defense has always been. Problem with the term illegal, people may be thinking the cops are acting like gang members and intentionally breaking the law. Issue with legality, even the lawyers will tell you what their opinion is, but the court will decide.
Two cases to look at Escobedo VS Illinois and Miranda VS Arizona. At the time, the actions were considered to be legal and was not decided until the case made it to the supreme court. So what constitute illegal? A warrant based on tainted evidence? A misstatement to the Police? Probably cause was not fully established, but seemed reasonable at the time?
Every American has the right to self defense, but that can be established or dismissed the court. Look at the Zimmerman case, if he acted legally we will not know that until the court decides or the DA decides and drops the case. I don't think I would want to be in his shoes. So with someone who believed they acted legally only to find out they did not act legally, it will be a mess.
Also what CJ said.
How about we look at this thing from a different perspective. I think people have made their objections to this law pretty clear, but it is the law now in Indiana, and it is not a stretch to think that other states may follow suit and adopt similar laws. There are many experienced LEOs here. If you were in a position to set department policy on warrant service raids, with this law in effect, what would you do to lessen the chance of your officers being shot and to prevent homeowners from engaging from armed resistance against your entry team?
@Hollis,
What was wrong with my OP? I saw that you edited it.
You had a link that some members reported it had a bug.......It was blocked from my server too.
Virus from link.
@Ought Six
The number of possible scenarios where all the involved persons could doubtlessly determine that an intrusion was unlawful is remarkably small. And in these few cases I reckon the officers would recognize the mistake and give in - or we'd be talking about rogue cops, invading your house to commit a crime. I doubt a judge would give you a prison sentence if you defended your home against a cop who pulled his gun on you and demanded your money.
Either way, you don't need a law for these special cases.
So in the end... yes. While I feel unable to comment on the length of the prison sentence in detail, I think it is just to punish the resistance of addressees of a police action which turned out to be unlawful. Like many people here pointed out - the lawfulness of an executive action is reviewed by courts and not by laymen on your doorstep. If you were wronged by government authorities you'll just have to take legal actions in line with orderly recourse, just like anybody else has to have.
And the substantiation I give is the fact that the United States of America are a constitutional state under the rule of law, and you'll most likely be given justice if you were wronged.
It's not perfect that way, but being perfect is a luxury the law cannot afford in order to be valid everywhere and at all times.
It simply seems like some perps wet dream "stand your ground against the evil pooooolice" kinda law. It's f*cked up. I was a cop. I never got a "warrant boner" thinking I'd get to shoot some meth head. Who the hell thinks like that? Cops are frigging people too. I wonder what the statistics are of cops that were involved in accidental shootings eating their guns or becoming alcoholics or having PTSD, or all 3. It's probably through the roof.
So a warrant is served on the wrong address. A citizen empties a 12 gauge into a couple of cops serving what they believe is a lawful warrant. The citizen is exonerated but has to live with the fact that he blew away a couple of family men just doing their job. That's a f* cked up thing to have to live with.
Crap, really sorry about that. Nothing came up in my computer, which has anti-virus and I use Chrome.
I think the problem is that in such cases, regardless of a suspect's right to self defense or what is supposed to happen in court, anyone at the scene that shoots police officers is pretty much presumed by the system to be guilty until proven innocent. That is understandable, as the courts and prosecutors work with LEOs daily and see them as 'the good guys'. The Indiana law appears to shift the burden of proof as to whether a resident claiming self defense was justified firmly onto LEOs. Again, this is the way it *appears* to me. I have not read the text of the law, nor am I any sort of legal expert. I am also not saying that the new law is a great idea in every respect. I am simply commenting on this single aspect to stimulate discussion of the point.
Assuming entry was a necessity, a very fast no knock raid done when everyone is asleep in the building. It takes time for people to respond unless they are setting there waiting for you. Bad guys generally have a plan, so speed and surprise would be important.
If entry is not a necessity, then sealing off the area, bring in adequate resources and wait them out.
Sorry for that, I was just being safe.
Posting Permissions
