IN: Citizens Now Allowed to Shoot Law Enforcement During Unlawful entry [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : IN: Citizens Now Allowed to Shoot Law Enforcement During Unlawful entry


snerd
08-06-2012, 11:13
Interesting.............
A new law in Indiana authorizes the general public to use deadly force against public servants (including law enforcement officers) who unlawfully enter private property.

http://theintelhub.com/2012/07/10/indiana-law-citizens-now-allowed-to-shoot-law-enforcement/

Cavalry Doc
08-06-2012, 11:26
How do you decide if the entry is unlawful, except after the fact?

Not sure, but if they have a search warrant, and they got the address wrong, but it still has a judges signature on it, is that unlawful?

I'd consider it a true tragedy if I shot a LEO just trying to do his job over a typo. Only thing worse than that would be if I or a loved one were hurt over the same mistake.

Jerry
08-06-2012, 11:40
How do you decide if the entry is unlawful, except after the fact?

Not sure, but if they have a search warrant, and they got the address wrong, but it still has a judges signature on it, is that unlawful?

Excellent question! Stupid? Yes! Tragic? Yes! But I would think it could only be viewed as illegal if the judge were lied to in order to obtain the warrant. I'm willing to bet anyone that shoots an LEO that has kicked in their door by mistake will still pay a very heavy price for being right. A large portion of the public will say they are still wrong for shooting a LEO no matter what the LEO has done.

Cavalry Doc
08-06-2012, 11:49
Excellent question! Stupid? Yes! Tragic? Yes! But I would think it could only be viewed as illegal if the judge were lied to in order to obtain the warrant. I'm willing to bet anyone that shoots an LEO that has kicked in their door by mistake will still pay a very heavy price for being right. A large portion of the public will say they are still wrong for shooting a LEO no matter what the LEO has done.

I'd feel terrible if I ever shot a LEO over a mistake, but with my lifestyle, it's a hell of a lot more likely that guys like this will be coming through the door.

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2010/09/15/hayes-Komisarjevsky-sbs_370x278.jpg

ModGlock17
08-06-2012, 11:51
How do you decide if the entry is unlawful, except after the fact?


.

I think you're right. After the fact.

A specific clause in FL law says you can't do that in FL, when LE is on duty.

It's nice to have a dog. You'd get advanced warning, and the ability to see what's going on first.

Cavalry Doc
08-06-2012, 12:03
I think you're right. After the fact.

A specific clause in FL law says you can't do that in FL, when LE is on duty.

It's nice to have a dog. You'd get advanced warning, and the ability to see what's going on first.

I have two dogs and a surveillance system. Reinforced doors too, which would be expected to slow even a battering ram down a bit. Bad part is that I would have to cross the front door to flip on the TV to see the video feed, time may be a factor.

Right now, the plan is to tray anyone trying to breach the door as what would honestly be more likely, bad guys at the gates.

countrygun
08-06-2012, 12:11
One of the reasons, despite my background, I have Always been unhappy with the casual issuing of "no knock" warrants. I am sorry to say this but it SHOULD be dangerous for LE to kick in someones door because they MIGHT be kicking in the wrong door. There are few circumstances that can't be handled with out such drama. Yes you can create "what if?" scenarios in your imagination all day long, but how many mistaken deaths, either civillian or LE are "acceptable colateral damage" to the "No Knock" tactic?

beforeobamabans
08-06-2012, 13:18
This is old news, and as you would know if you bothered to do a little research, it is the people's house restoring rights abrogated by an activist court. It's a good and necessary law given the rulings last year by the Indiana Supreme Court.

You want the gestapo kicking down your door without a warrant? I didn't think so. Thank you Indiana General Assembly.

CitizenOfDreams
08-06-2012, 13:30
It's nice to have a dog. You'd get advanced warning, and the ability to see what's going on first.
If you plan to use a dog to warn you about a LEO visit, don't get too attached to it.

AZL
08-06-2012, 13:45
Anyone want the perspective of a veteran police officer?

Believe it or not...I support the AFFIRMATION of the RIGHT of a homeowner (even a renter, just to be clear) to use whatever force is necessary to stop an ILLEGAL entry by ANYONE...status as LE or "Gub'ment O-fishull" not withstanding.

No matter what some (especially in the fed'ral gub'ment) believe, the 4th Ammendment is still alive, though it has definitely taken some hits over the last 30 years.

The old saying that "A man's home is his castle" means a lot more than the hyperbole associated with the phrase now. Your home is, and should be your last bastion of safety and security. You SHOULD feel safe and secure within the walls of your home, and to that end, you have the right to repel boarders.

Someone busting down your door is, by it's nature, a VIOLENT AND TUMULTUOUS ENTRY. Any reasonable person would believe, given the increase in home invasion robberies that turn to rape and homicide, that ANY violent entry into your home is thus an IMMEDIATE AND OTHERWISE UNAVOIDABLE DEADLY THREAT.

An HONEST person should have NO reasonable expectation that a SWAT team would have ANY reason to break down their door, therefore...read above... ANY violent entry into your home is thus an IMMEDIATE AND OTHERWISE UNAVOIDABLE DEADLY THREAT. You do NOT have the luxury of time to solve a RIGHT THE EFF NOW problem with detached reflection.

Now...all that being said...YOU as the homeowner have a responsibility to make sure your ADDRESS is prominently displayed on your home! I don't care about aesthetics...because here's the deal...if your address is NOT prominently displayed on your curb, and AGAIN by your front and back door...it can be claimed that the mistake was YOURS and not whomever screwed up.

It makes sense to me. My home address is on the garage, on a name placard by the front door rught under the "greeting light" as my wife calls it and on the back door welcome sign. If ANYONE chooses to ignore ALL those signals and comes in anyway... they really don't have a leg to stand on when they claim "Oops...my bad".

Also....you NEED to have security screen doors both front and back that open OUTWARD. They are nearly impossible to kick inward" and require breaching tools to open OUTWARD, and thus provide noise notification that something is amiss. Obviously they should also be alarmed with a VERY VERY loud klaxon that will wake the neighbors (so note of the time may be made, etc...etc...etc...) An inexpensive video or web cam directed at your entry doors will also be an asset. The audible alarm will give you a reactionary gap in which to place yourself in a position of cover from which the mess MAY BE SORTED OUT without anyone having to be hurt, which IS the best outcome. The camera will provide evidence supporting YOUR version of events.

Think about it.

snerd
08-06-2012, 13:50
This is old news, and as you would know if you bothered to do a little research, it is the people's house restoring rights abrogated by an activist court. It's a good and necessary law given the rulings last year by the Indiana Supreme Court.

You want the gestapo kicking down your door without a warrant? I didn't think so. Thank you Indiana General Assembly.
Were you assuming that I disapproved of the law?

AZL
08-06-2012, 13:51
If you plan to use a dog to warn you about a LEO visit, don't get too attached to it.

Why? If Rover is in the house ALL Rover needs to do is BARK BARK BARK WOOF WOOF WOOF.

You don't need a trained ninja attack chihuahua in the front yard.

Besides...we'd get in more trouble for shooting a dog than a violent sebject.

Barky pooches are a GREAT idea. They are more sensitive to what is going on than anyone else...and...even if they catch a bullet...that's what they get paid for. I love my dogs...but I'd rather lose them than a hair on my kid's head get scuffed.

countrygun
08-06-2012, 13:58
AZL, you and I are on the same page.

ModGlock17
08-06-2012, 14:22
I think surveillance cameras is a good idea. Most important addition to my vehicles is $50 Hi-def cams attached (suction cup) to top of windshield. More expensive version has GPS speed on recorded video. You can easily attach them to windows in house, set to motion activated.

Like AZL said, it's good insurance for such a cheap price considering lawyers and court costs. LE should like them, too.... Makes their job simpler.

AZL
08-06-2012, 14:58
But...all the previous posts have some merit...the salient point is this:

ANY competent officer asking for a warrant had better DAMNED WELL double-triple-quadruple check the warrant application to make sure it is all correct, as should HIS superior.

There are MANY components to a proper warrant, and they ALL must be fulfilled and correct to be vaild and legal. If it is incorrect, it is NOT a valid warrant especially if the address to be searched is wrong because NO probable cause to seek the warrant exists on THAT address. Yes, it IS legal double-talk and "portugreek"...but there you have it.

For example...the suspect is John J.J. Smith, who resides at 123 Street Lane, Funkytown AZ 85666. The warrant very clearly shows that name and address.

The entry/search team does a no-knock at 123 Street Drive, Funkytown AZ 85666 which is owned by Ward Cleaver.

Ward Cleaver KNOWING he has done nothing wrong, and has absolutely NO reason to believe LE would be knocking his door to the ground, uses his defensive firearm to protect the Beaver. Ward is well within his rights to protect said Beaver from an ILLEGAL entry into his home because the warrant was INCORRECT and ILLEGALLY EXECUTED upon his home because it is for the wrong address, and negligence on the part of the entry team for not making sure the address on the warrant matched the address ON the warrant.

If Ward can ARTICULATE this...he has a pretty good chance of not being prosecuted by any DA with any freakin' common sense.

HOWEVER...sadly...the Beaver will be an orphan because Ward brought a pistol to a rifle fight. BUT...the lawsuit would be HUGE

series1811
08-06-2012, 15:49
The only problem with shooting law enforcement officers as they enter your home is that the rest of them will shoot back.

If that sounds like a winner for you, go for it.

ModGlock17
08-06-2012, 16:33
Here's a real situation:

"
Andrew Scott was killed on July 15. The 26-year-old heard banging on his door very early in the morning and he answered with a gun in his hand, according to officials. That's when a deputy shot him.
Part of the terrible tragedy is that Scott was not the one deputies were looking for that night. "


Read more: http://www.wesh.com/news/central-florida/Family-of-man-shot-killed-by-Lake-Co-deputies-files-lawsuit/-/11788162/15988754/-/1evegfz/-/index.html#ixzz22o9cVbFi

Sam Spade
08-06-2012, 17:28
Here's a real situation:

"
Andrew Scott was killed on July 15. The 26-year-old heard banging on his door very early in the morning and he answered with a gun in his hand, according to officials. That's when a deputy shot him.
Part of the terrible tragedy is that Scott was not the one deputies were looking for that night. "


Read more: http://www.wesh.com/news/central-florida/Family-of-man-shot-killed-by-Lake-Co-deputies-files-lawsuit/-/11788162/15988754/-/1evegfz/-/index.html#ixzz22o9cVbFi

You skipped the part where he pointed the gun at the cops, who were lawfully present. Stupid games, stupid prizes.

And to get ahead of another issue, their hired mouthpiece is, ah, "misrepresenting" at least the SCOTUS decision. No requirement for a cop to announce when he's not serving a warrant.

Gunnut 45/454
08-06-2012, 18:13
If any thing I think this will force the cops to think twice before they do "No Knocks" and ensure the warrent is for the right person/place ! Which should be the priority anyway.:supergrin: When entering a private home the law should be absolutely sure it is nessesary.

Sam Spade
08-06-2012, 18:17
If any thing I think this will force the cops to think twice before they do "No Knocks" and ensure the warrent is for the right person/place ! Which should be the priority anyway.:supergrin: When entering a private home the law should be absolutely sure it is nessesary.

If anything, *I* think this will cause the cops to use SWAT more often for warrant services. If the chances of being shot go up, might as well have big guns and armor on scene.

Jerry
08-06-2012, 18:25
I think you're right. After the fact.

A specific clause in FL law says you can't do that in FL, when LE is on duty.

It's nice to have a dog. You'd get advanced warning, and the ability to see what's going on first.

Only problem with that is they WILL shoot your dog. I have several and if one were to be shot that just might spur me into shooting the SOB that shot my dog(s).

Cavalry Doc, with my lifestyle and outspokenness I've been expecting a knock or kick for years. So far so good. :)

Jerry
08-06-2012, 18:38
If anything, *I* think this will cause the cops to use SWAT more often for warrant services. If the chances of being shot go up, might as well have big guns and armor on scene.

Yah, that's pretty much the gumments mentality. Don't worry about being right, just make sure you can kill any threat. :whistling:

ModGlock17
08-07-2012, 04:59
You skipped the part where he pointed the gun at the cops, who were lawfully present. Stupid games, stupid prizes.

.

Sam, I don't think you or anyone alive here know what happenned (except for the cops who were there).

The only eye-witness on the non-cop side, is dead.

If there was any video cam of the event, it would have been gone.

Bren
08-07-2012, 05:04
Interesting.............
A new law in Indiana authorizes the general public to use deadly force against public servants (including law enforcement officers) who unlawfully enter private property.

http://theintelhub.com/2012/07/10/in...w-enforcement/



I wonder if that incorrect description indicates that people are not able to understand what this law allows, as I predicted. No law in Indiana allows anybody to shoot anybody for "unlawfully entering private property" to start with.

Bren
08-07-2012, 05:05
Sam, I don't think you or anyone alive here know what happenned (except for the cops who were there).

The only eye-witness on the non-cop side, is dead.

If there was any video cam of the event, it would have been gone.

So you assume the police were wrong, right after admitting you have no evidence from which to believe they were wrong? Tells more about you than them.

ModGlock17
08-07-2012, 05:15
So you assume the police were wrong, right after admitting you have no evidence from which to believe they were wrong? Tells more about you than them.

No. If I am wrong, I'd say so !

The point here is that you don't have a complete story. The other side of the story is missing.

Which part of that is wrong ???

I can certainly get personal about your post. But let's tay on the topic.

Cavalry Doc
08-07-2012, 05:22
If you plan to use a dog to warn you about a LEO visit, don't get too attached to it.

That's awful understanding of you. Not.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Heights,_Maryland_mayor's_residence_drug_raid#section_6

A lawsuit was filed in June 2009 against Prince George's County Sheriff Michael Jackson; Detective Shawn Scarlata; the state of Maryland; Prince George's County; and two "John Doe" deputy sheriffs, whose names were not immediately released.[25] In depositions, law enforcement personnel admitted that at least one of the dogs was running away when shot.[26] In January 2011, the suit was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of money and various SWAT reforms.[27]

In response to the report, Cheye Calvo issued the following statement: "By commending his deputies for their actions, the Sheriff is placing other innocent families and innocent family pets at risk. There is no excuse for the no-knock entry into our home, the killing of Payton and Chase, and the prolonged handcuffing of my mother-in-law and myself."[24]


Hope any LEO that picks my house by mistake or a lack of due diligence doesn't have an overly strong attachment to his job or worldly possessions. I'd make it my mission in life to be made whole. I would probably not be as nice as the Mayor in that story.

It would have to be a screw up if they picked my house.

Cavalry Doc
08-07-2012, 05:33
One of the reasons, despite my background, I have Always been unhappy with the casual issuing of "no knock" warrants. I am sorry to say this but it SHOULD be dangerous for LE to kick in someones door because they MIGHT be kicking in the wrong door. There are few circumstances that can't be handled with out such drama. Yes you can create "what if?" scenarios in your imagination all day long, but how many mistaken deaths, either civillian or LE are "acceptable colateral damage" to the "No Knock" tactic?

I think that it should be the same for LEO as it is for me. If I perform a high risk procedure on the wrong patient, I lose my job. Period. Not just with my current employer, but with any employer. I'd lose the ability to ever work in my current field due to the loss of credentials needed to do that job. One mistake like that is one too many. It should be routine to ban the responsible individuals from ever working in law enforcement again if they don't take due diligence in ensuring they have the right place and the right guy.

There is nothing like the threat of personal responsibility to motivate people to get it right the first time.

Bren
08-07-2012, 05:39
How do you decide if the entry is unlawful, except after the fact?

Not sure, but if they have a search warrant, and they got the address wrong, but it still has a judges signature on it, is that unlawful?


Not in Kentucky - Indiana may be different, but our "execution of public duty" statute makes it justified to do things like forcibly enter a house, if you reasonably believe you have a valid warrant, even if it isn't valid.

I have said, since first hearing about this law, that it serves no practical purpose for the citizen because (a) there is no way for them to know if an entry is illegal, even if they know the law and (b) regardless of that, if they start using any type of force to prevent the entry, they will be injured, dead, and/or in jail.

To make it better, the Indiana statutes don't specifically say when you can use deadly force vs. non-deadly force (contrary to what the OP's article implies), like they do in KY. Indiana's justification statutes say you can use "reasonable force" which leaves it up to the person to decide what that is. That's a prettyy vague and tricky statute that gives a lot of discretion to prosecutors, juries, etc.

Bren
08-07-2012, 05:43
No. If I am wrong, I'd say so !

The point here is that you don't have a complete story. The other side of the story is missing.

Which part of that is wrong ???

I can certainly get personal about your post. But let's tay on the topic.

Maybe you didn't understand my response:

You first admitted there was no witness saying the police were wrong - so all of the evidence we have says they were right.

You then said:
If there was any video cam of the event, it would have been gone.
Are you saying you think the polcie would criminally destroy evidence, even where it supports them? Not likely, so I took the aprt I udnerlined to be a claim that, if there was such evidence, the piolice would destroy it because it would show they were lying. However, you admitted before that, that you had no reason to think they were lying.

Those statements are inconsistent and show an assumption that the police did wrong, even though you admit having no evidence to create such a beli8ef.

series1811
08-07-2012, 05:44
If any thing I think this will force the cops to think twice before they do "No Knocks" and ensure the warrent is for the right person/place ! Which should be the priority anyway.:supergrin: When entering a private home the law should be absolutely sure it is nessesary.

If you don't think cops are already thinking about getting shot on every single warrant they do, then all that tells me is that you have never executed a warrant.

One of the differences between cops and non-cops is that cops are routinely doing stuff every day that normal people wouldn't do after stopping and thinking about it.

If you are going to arrest someone who has already shot somebody before, for example, you would be pretty stupid to not think he might shoot you. Cops think and know that, and go arrest the guy anyway.

mntrpr
08-07-2012, 05:46
I think that it should be the same for LEO as it is for me. If I perform a high risk procedure on the wrong patient, I lose my job. Period. Not just with my current employer, but with any employer. I'd lose the ability to ever work in my current field due to the loss of credentials needed to do that job. One mistake like that is one too many. It should be routine to ban the responsible individuals from ever working in law enforcement again if they don't take due diligence in ensuring they have the right place and the right guy.

There is nothing like the threat of personal responsibility to motivate people to get it right the first time.

Gosh, and here i thought medical errors killed more people than cops.....

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Bren
08-07-2012, 05:51
If you don't think cops are already thinking about getting shot on every single warrant they do, then all that tells me is that you have never executed a warrant.

One of the differences between cops and non-cops is that cops are routinely doing stuff every day that normal people wouldn't do after stopping and thinking about it.

If you are going to arrest someone who has already shot somebody before, for example, you would be pretty stupid to not think he might shoot you. Cops think and know that, and go arrest the guy anyway.

Which Glock Talker was it who admitted he based his opinion and knowledge of police work on what he saw on COPS? It was some theread about a month ago. Funny as that guy was, he deserves some respect for admitting what they all know. Heck, some of them don't even know what they'd learn from COPS.

series1811
08-07-2012, 05:54
Which Glock Talker was it who admitted he based his opinion and knowledge of police work on what he saw on COPS? It was some theread about a month ago. Funny as that guy was, he deserves some respect for admitting what they all know. Heck, some of them don't even know what they'd learn from COPS.

Exactly right. People feel like they understand police procedure, the law, and deadly force, because they know they have witnessed all three so much in their lives, without ever stopping to realize where, and what, they have witnessed.

Namely, lots and lots of fictionalized dramas on TV and in movies. "Fictionalized" being the operative word.

Goaltender66
08-07-2012, 05:57
Namely, lots and lots of fictionalized dramas on TV and in movies. "Fictionalized" being the operative word.

Language warning, but a very good litany of dumb things people "know" about the law and police work:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18385_7-bull****-police-myths-everyone-believes-thanks-to-movies.html

Bren
08-07-2012, 06:10
Language warning, but a very good litany of dumb things people "know" about the law and police work:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18385_7-bull****-police-myths-everyone-believes-thanks-to-movies.html

They left out some of my favorites:

1. The police can take you in for questioning.

Where: 97% of all police shows and movies.

Reality: If the police take you in for questioning, and especially if they let you go after that, somebody is getting sued, fired, maybe worse. It's called an "arrest: when the police take you "down town" and it requires probable cause and a criminal charge and the police don't have the authority to release you once that has been done. I don't even know how far back in history you'd have to go to find a time the police thought that was legal.

2. Tasers knock people unconscious.

Where: Every Taser use in fiction.

Reality: Not unless you hit your head on a rock when you fall down. otherwise, in 5 seconds the Taser stops and you're just fine, except the spots where the darts went in will itch for a week. On TV, they actually knock you out for exactly as long as the Taser user needs you knock out...or until a dramatic moment.

3. Double Jeopardy - somebody based a whole movies on the idea that if you were convicted of a crime once, you can then commit it and not be tried again.

Where: That stupid movie: Double Jeopardy

Reality: If you go to prison for killing your husband in 2005, then get parolled and really kill him in 2012, they will probaby set aside the 2005 conviction while you are serving your sentence for the 2012 murder. If you rob the same bank 100 times, that's 100 separate crimes.

Cavalry Doc
08-07-2012, 06:38
Gosh, and here i thought medical errors killed more people than cops.....

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Funny, not by me. I've never killed anyone by accident.

When it happens to you, it doesn't matter if the odds were one in a billion, as far as you are concerned the odds would be 100%.

You're not arguing that LEO shouldn't be held to the same level of after the fact responsibility, are you???

Cavalry Doc
08-07-2012, 06:41
Not in Kentucky - Indiana may be different, but our "execution of public duty" statute makes it justified to do things like forcibly enter a house, if you reasonably believe you have a valid warrant, even if it isn't valid.

I have said, since first hearing about this law, that it serves no practical purpose for the citizen because (a) there is no way for them to know if an entry is illegal, even if they know the law and (b) regardless of that, if they start using any type of force to prevent the entry, they will be injured, dead, and/or in jail.

To make it better, the Indiana statutes don't specifically say when you can use deadly force vs. non-deadly force (contrary to what the OP's article implies), like they do in KY. Indiana's justification statutes say you can use "reasonable force" which leaves it up to the person to decide what that is. That's a prettyy vague and tricky statute that gives a lot of discretion to prosecutors, juries, etc.


As a law abiding citizen, do I have a right to assume anyone breaking into my home is there illegally?

Here in Texas, we can shoot through the door. A phone call asking me to step outside with my hands up would be much safer for all involved.

series1811
08-07-2012, 06:57
As a law abiding citizen, do I have a right to assume anyone breaking into my home is there illegally?

Here in Texas, we can shoot through the door. A phone call asking me to step outside with my hands up would be much safer for all involved.

And, you have illuminated a big part of the problem. Self defense statutes and case law, are state generated, not federal (except for DC). So there are really 50 correct answers to every question (and 49 incorrect ones) depending on which state you are in, and which state law you try and apply.

Cavalry Doc
08-07-2012, 07:54
And, you have illuminated a big part of the problem. Self defense statutes and case law, are state generated, not federal (except for DC). So there are really 50 correct answers to every question (and 49 incorrect ones) depending on which state you are in, and which state law you try and apply.

Without any other way to know, watching someone Gi to great effort to get in the front door, causing damage, I'm not too hot about waiting for them to complete the breach and take a close look at their ID before I start taking action. Now if I was a bad guy, I would have an expectation that it may be good guys coming after me, but since I am a good guy myself, I'm gonna have to play the odds and expect its a group of home invaders out to do bad things.

The odds are infinitesimal that will ever happen, but it's a thought.

Cavalry Doc
08-07-2012, 07:58
Only problem with that is they WILL shoot your dog. I have several and if one were to be shot that just might spur me into shooting the SOB that shot my dog(s).

Cavalry Doc, with my lifestyle and outspokenness I've been expecting a knock or kick for years. So far so good. :)

I'd maybe think about keeping a lower profile. Just sayin'

Old rule, when in combat, try to look unimportant, the enemy may be low on ammo.

CitizenOfDreams
08-07-2012, 08:17
That's awful understanding of you. Not.
OK. So they cops killed the family dogs, "at least one of them" while running away, then settled for "undisclosed amount of money and various SWAT reforms".

So what are SWAT teams instructed to do with the dogs now?

Bren
08-07-2012, 08:32
As a law abiding citizen, do I have a right to assume anyone breaking into my home is there illegally?

Not here. There is a presumption that a person is breaking in to commit a crime in the laws we copied from Florida's "stand your ground" bill a few years ago, which would allow you to assume a person breaking in can be shot under our defense against burglary law, but it only works if the person is "unlawfully" entering and they are not a "peace officer" acting "in the performance of official duties."

Technically we could shoot through the door and we don't have to let the person get inside, but we just have to be right that they were illegally breaking in to commit a crime.

beforeobamabans
08-07-2012, 08:59
Not in Kentucky - Indiana may be different, but our "execution of public duty" statute makes it justified to do things like forcibly enter a house, if you reasonably believe you have a valid warrant, even if it isn't valid.

I have said, since first hearing about this law, that it serves no practical purpose for the citizen because (a) there is no way for them to know if an entry is illegal, even if they know the law and (b) regardless of that, if they start using any type of force to prevent the entry, they will be injured, dead, and/or in jail.

To make it better, the Indiana statutes don't specifically say when you can use deadly force vs. non-deadly force (contrary to what the OP's article implies), like they do in KY. Indiana's justification statutes say you can use "reasonable force" which leaves it up to the person to decide what that is. That's a prettyy vague and tricky statute that gives a lot of discretion to prosecutors, juries, etc.

The secret pass phrase is:

"I believed I was under imminent threat of deadly force."

To the cops: don't you knock and announce yourselves when arriving with a warrant? If you do this, you won't get shot by me.

series1811
08-07-2012, 09:04
The secret pass phrase is:

"I believed I was under imminent threat of deadly force."

To the cops: don't you knock and announce yourselves when arriving with a warrant? If you do this, you won't get shot by me.

As long as your not giving this secret pass phrase to St. Peter.

kirgi08
08-07-2012, 09:18
:popcorn:

Skyhook
08-07-2012, 09:47
As a law abiding citizen, do I have a right to assume anyone breaking into my home is there illegally?

Here in Texas, we can shoot through the door. A phone call asking me to step outside with my hands up would be much safer for all involved.

:thumbsup:

Although supplying cops with really neat, deadly toys might entice a few departments to go slap-dash, willy-nilly into civilian homes in the middle of the night, I doubt that is routine and yet, there's the temptation to use those neat tools and all that specialized training, right?

One would think that any swat deployment or No-Knock' procedure would be used in the rare circumstances where the facts were known and the options were down to one.

Also, I do believe most anyone can obtain uniforms, badges, etc., and pretend to be a cop and thus get the 'jump' on the average sleepy citizen. I think that scenario has played out once or twice.

'No-Knock' is a dangerous procedure and it should used only in extreme circumstances under rigid ROE.

Bren
08-07-2012, 09:50
The secret pass phrase is:

"I believed I was under imminent threat of deadly force."

To the cops: don't you knock and announce yourselves when arriving with a warrant? If you do this, you won't get shot by me.

There is no secret pass, as that loony in Texas, who shot the fireman, recently discovered. Your belief has to be real enough that a jury will agree that it was a genuine belief, even here in Kentucky, which has some of the easiest deadly force justification laws in the U.S.

And, as series1811 implied, the justification law only works if you make it to court. The part where the police shoot back comes before that. How many cases do you recall where a civilian won a gunfight with the police?

Gundude
08-07-2012, 10:06
The odds are infinitesimal that will ever happen, but it's a thought.Idunno. I hear "swatting" is all the rage with the kids these days. The modern day equivalent of leaving a flaming bag of poo on your doorstep and ringing the doorbell.

AZL
08-07-2012, 10:10
The point is...and has been made by several posters...you really don't have time to "react" to a home invasion, you must create time to "act"on a home invasion.

We can get into methodology or techniques (I HATE the word "tactics" outside of real training) and physical security...but many have already chimed in on that, myself included.

The point is....a good guy...law abiding citizen would never have a reasonable expectation that the door being busted down is being busted down by officers. The ONLY smart way to play it is to have enough physical security, and early warning in place to CREATE the time and reactionary gap to ACT. If you have those compponents, your chances of surviving and prevailing increase exponentially.

It is absolutely encumbent upon the officers breeching a residence to KNOW FOR DAMNED SURE they are at the right place. Similarly, it is encumbent upon the law abiding homeowner to make DAMNED SURE his place is marked accordingly.

Don't get me wrong...I am NOT advocating gunning down police officers. I was one, and I damned sure didn't want to catch terminal deadness because of an OOPS or FUBAR in paperwork. By the same token, I would hate to be the officer who shot a homeowner because of an OOPS or FUBAR in paperwork...either way, you are just as dead, and just as tragically.

"I'm sorry, we had the wrong address and by golly...we'll get an ambulance over here right away to cart your dead husband away." is NOT going to be any consolation for the family who just suffered a tradegy because he was doing the right thing in protecting his family.

The above won't be any more an easy pill to swallow if the same homeowner is gunned down by scumbag hood rats who invaded his home, and he died because he hesitated to act wondering if the invaders were undercover officers. He will still be just as dead.

No knock warrants should NEVER be served by officers/agents in plainclothes! POLICE or SHERIFF (not a 3-letter agency name) should be EMBLAZONED across everything! You SHOULD have the security in place to warn you in time to act. The good news is, the entry team will not come in shooting as they do in movies. Hopefully that moment cooler heads can prevail because the homeowner should be under cover/concealment and not giving them a target, and identities can be sorted out. THAT is the fervent hope.

But...at the same time...the INNOCENT homeowner SHOULD be allowed to use that force which is necessary to defend himself and his loved ones EVEN AGAINST LE. Dying of OOPS or FUBAR paperwork is NOT the fault of the homeowner and NO reason for him to be dead.

Just sayin'

Cavalry Doc
08-07-2012, 10:37
Idunno. I hear "swatting" is all the rage with the kids these days. The modern day equivalent of leaving a flaming bag of poo on your doorstep and ringing the doorbell.

Not very likely, I don't have those kinds of enemies. Except for a Paul supporter or two, that have tried but failed to locate me.

Cavalry Doc
08-07-2012, 10:39
OK. So they cops killed the family dogs, "at least one of them" while running away, then settled for "undisclosed amount of money and various SWAT reforms".

So what are SWAT teams instructed to do with the dogs now?

Let's both hope I never find out. My dogs are friends of mine.

Cavalry Doc
08-07-2012, 10:48
There is no secret pass, as that loony in Texas, who shot the fireman, recently discovered. Your belief has to be real enough that a jury will agree that it was a genuine belief, even here in Kentucky, which has some of the easiest deadly force justification laws in the U.S.

And, as series1811 implied, the justification law only works if you make it to court. The part where the police shoot back comes before that. How many cases do you recall where a civilian won a gunfight with the police?

I'd expect return fire from bad guys too. If I'm playing the odds, I gotta go with it being bad guys. Hope neither ever happens for all of our sakes. I'm not a ninja, but I have some experience in CQB. It would be ugly.

Guess we should all be careful, huh? I'm going to trust that my local LEO's would not make such a careless mistake.

kirgi08
08-07-2012, 11:04
They do Doc,you've seen it.'08. :sad:

beforeobamabans
08-07-2012, 12:18
One practical outworking of this law has been at least one documented case where a homeowner, who was out of town, had his alarm system triggered by would-be burglars. The cops in that jurisdiction decided not to respond and claimed their reason was the potential danger posed by the new law.

Cavalry Doc
08-07-2012, 12:31
As long as your not giving this secret pass phrase to St. Peter.

Which would work just as well with a warrant with the wrong darn address on it.

Everyone should be careful out there.

mntrpr
08-07-2012, 14:04
Funny, not by me. I've never killed anyone by accident.

When it happens to you, it doesn't matter if the odds were one in a billion, as far as you are concerned the odds would be 100%.

You're not arguing that LEO shouldn't be held to the same level of after the fact responsibility, are you???

I wasn't arguing anything, just pointing out that you have a higher chance of being killed by a medical professional than you do by a cop.

Bren
08-07-2012, 17:12
I'd expect return fire from bad guys too. If I'm playing the odds, I gotta go with it being bad guys. Hope neither ever happens for all of our sakes. I'm not a ninja, but I have some experience in CQB. It would be ugly.

Bad guys might come in 2 or 3 or 4. The police come in as many as it takes to win the fight. It would be like taking on the Army from the middle of main post Ft. Benning.

Bad guys can not only be beaten, but they are unskilled and not very dedicated - unless it's something personal, they usually can't wait to find an easier target. The police are the opposite - even in a small town, you get cops driving from other jurisdictions and coming from off-duty in their family car, if that's what it takes. Cops come from other states to help cops.

There is no version where the civilian wins, in his own home. In an ambush on the street, a civilian might get one and get away before anybody notices, but if he stays for the fight, he's in a fight no civilian has ever won, that I'cve heard of and, in his own home, he has to stay for the fight. The only way of even surviving is to give up and go to jail.

snerd
08-07-2012, 17:34
.......... There is no version where the civilian wins, in his own home.....
Good lord. The fact that this is the current school of thought, and mainstream, shows just how far we've strayed from the Founders intent.

Cavalry Doc
08-07-2012, 20:38
Bad guys might come in 2 or 3 or 4. The police come in as many as it takes to win the fight. It would be like taking on the Army from the middle of main post Ft. Benning.

Bad guys can not only be beaten, but they are unskilled and not very dedicated - unless it's something personal, they usually can't wait to find an easier target. The police are the opposite - even in a small town, you get cops driving from other jurisdictions and coming from off-duty in their family car, if that's what it takes. Cops come from other states to help cops.

There is no version where the civilian wins, in his own home. In an ambush on the street, a civilian might get one and get away before anybody notices, but if he stays for the fight, he's in a fight no civilian has ever won, that I'cve heard of and, in his own home, he has to stay for the fight. The only way of even surviving is to give up and go to jail.

Lets just say I've been involved in a few out of country "no knock" events. Even watched a wall breach or two. Watched several rooms/buildings cleared by explosives. Our rules of engagement allowed a lot more leeway.

If the first assault is repulsed for any reason, we could simply call in close air support, a fast mover, or artillery. We always won too.

I have no doubt that I would lose in the end if it happened to be a SWAT team, but if I were somehow able to repulse the first team trying but getting unexpectedly stalled at the door, with 8 very quickly fired 12 gauge slugs through the door at hip level, I'm probably screwed.

They aren't going to back off and call the land line to try to talk me out at that point, the out of town replacements would show up and they would be looking for revenge. No sweat, so would I.

You have to understand something. I've seen more people shot, stabbed, crushed, and blown up in my time to remove any curiosity about what it looks like. It ain't pretty, and it ain't glorious. It's ugly squared. I have absolutely no desire to ever hurt another human being. I admire and respect those that are willing to take on the dangerous jobs that no one else wants to do. It would crush me to hurt someone undeserving, like the first six guys serving a screwed up no knock warrant on my house.


But you have to understand things from my perspective. I don't do drugs. I don't lie, cheat or steal. I don't have any pedophile tendencies. I don't cheat on my taxes. I don't speed (more than 4 miles over :whistling:).

I'm one of the good guys, I do nothing to draw the attention of the police or any other authorities.

I HAVE to assume that my local LEO's are good guys, and would not mistakenly try to kick in my front door. I HAVE to assume that it's bad guys, and that the fight is on. I do not fight fair, win or lose, I will be trying to win.


That's why the whole idea of some numbnuts desk jockey typing the wrong address on a warrant is so abhorrent to me. As is a lack of due diligence in making sure you have the right place before you barge in. I think there should be career ending consequences for LEO's that perform their service on the wrong address, especially in high risk no knock warrants. Heck, I deal with that same level of scrutiny every day, I'm not asking for anything that I would be unwilling to subject myself to every day.

So really, what is so unreasonable about my plan when I hear cursing, loud banging and slowly splintering reinforced wood at my door.

I'm willing to leave the world alone, and just want the favor returned.

Cavalry Doc
08-07-2012, 20:46
I wasn't arguing anything, just pointing out that you have a higher chance of being killed by a medical professional than you do by a cop.

Well, I don't. It pays to be an informed consumer.

nmk
08-07-2012, 22:33
Lets just say I've been involved in a few out of country "no knock" events. Even watched a wall breach or two. Watched several rooms/buildings cleared by explosives. Our rules of engagement allowed a lot more leeway.

If the first assault is repulsed for any reason, we could simply call in close air support, a fast mover, or artillery. We always won too.

I have no doubt that I would lose in the end if it happened to be a SWAT team, but if I were somehow able to repulse the first team trying but getting unexpectedly stalled at the door, with 8 very quickly fired 12 gauge slugs through the door at hip level, I'm probably screwed.

They aren't going to back off and call the land line to try to talk me out at that point, the out of town replacements would show up and they would be looking for revenge. No sweat, so would I.

You have to understand something. I've seen more people shot, stabbed, crushed, and blown up in my time to remove any curiosity about what it looks like. It ain't pretty, and it ain't glorious. It's ugly squared. I have absolutely no desire to ever hurt another human being. I admire and respect those that are willing to take on the dangerous jobs that no one else wants to do. It would crush me to hurt someone undeserving, like the first six guys serving a screwed up no knock warrant on my house.


But you have to understand things from my perspective. I don't do drugs. I don't lie, cheat or steal. I don't have any pedophile tendencies. I don't cheat on my taxes. I don't speed (more than 4 miles over :whistling:).

I'm one of the good guys, I do nothing to draw the attention of the police or any other authorities.

I HAVE to assume that my local LEO's are good guys, and would not mistakenly try to kick in my front door. I HAVE to assume that it's bad guys, and that the fight is on. I do not fight fair, win or lose, I will be trying to win.


That's why the whole idea of some numbnuts desk jockey typing the wrong address on a warrant is so abhorrent to me. As is a lack of due diligence in making sure you have the right place before you barge in. I think there should be career ending consequences for LEO's that perform their service on the wrong address, especially in high risk no knock warrants. Heck, I deal with that same level of scrutiny every day, I'm not asking for anything that I would be unwilling to subject myself to every day.

So really, what is so unreasonable about my plan when I hear cursing, loud banging and slowly splintering reinforced wood at my door.

I'm willing to leave the world alone, and just want the favor returned.


This is a great post.

youngdocglock
08-07-2012, 22:42
Simple. I live with my girlfriend. Neither of us are felons, neither of us have criminal records, Neither of us take part in criminal activities. If the police show up at my door, its usually a courtesy call, or to ask about a break in up the road *tough guys up there*. And thats it. A polite knock.........and they know im armed.

If for some reason my door flys open and flash bangs go off...........its not a lawful entry and they have no reason to be here. Would i shoot them? no because i know the officers personally and couldnt face their wives afterwards.

Would i be hella pissed and tell them to holster their weapons............yeah

Bren
08-08-2012, 04:41
Good lord. The fact that this is the current school of thought, and mainstream, shows just how far we've strayed from the Founders intent.

Then you completely failed to udnerstand anything I wrote. It had nothing to do with law or rights or founders, for one thing. It was about what happe4ns in reality when you are in a gun fight against the police in a fixed location. No decisions about your constitutional rights will be made until the fighting is over and they were much less likely to be made during the fight 200 years ago.

Bren
08-08-2012, 04:48
If for some reason my door flys open and flash bangs go off...........its not a lawful entry and they have no reason to be here. Would i shoot them? no because i know the officers personally and couldnt face their wives afterwards.

Would i be hella pissed and tell them to holster their weapons............yeah

But here's the point people in Indiana seem to miss - if you shot the officers in that situation you would go to prison...even under the new Indiana law...if you lived, which is very unlikely. There is nearly 0 chance you'd ever have to worry about "facing their wives" unless it was diuring the sentencing phase of your trial.

That's why, in Kentucky, we specifically gear our law on such things to making people sort out the legal issues in court, where they can talk to judges and lawyers. For example, in Tennessee, if you are being wrongfuklly arrested, you can resist on the side of the road...before you go to the hospital - in Kentucky, you are required to go to jail and sort it out later in court, where nobody gets hurt and you can be paid for your trouble,

Cavalry Doc
08-08-2012, 05:32
The problem with the threat of likely being killed by police if one decided to protect themselves is sort of moot. I'd be in even more danger of dying if it wasn't the police, so until I see uniforms, I'd have to assume it would be much more likely that it's bad guys at the gates. If I saw uniforms, I'd drop any weapon I had immediately, and hopefully that would be fast enough. I don't think anyone (that's sane anyway) would want to shoot police officers and hope to get away with it. At some point, you have to do a quick root cause analysis. If I was ever placed in a situation where my front and/or back door was being assaulted, and in the minutely possible situation that it happened to be police, that would not be my fault. It may Not be the fault of the guys coming in the door either, but you have to play the odds and take the action that are most likely to insure your own survival. Odds are bad guys are gonna leave real soon if you hit a couple trying to come in. If it happened to be police, yep, you're probably screwed, but letting someone in to check ID's is a lot more likely to end in you being screwed. No door is impenetrable, so if the door did happen to be breached and I instantly saw uniforms, I'd be very compliant, and take care of the issue with paper.

The simple fact is that a little due diligence goes a long way to prevent a law abiding home owner from getting into a gun battle with police, and they have the ability to avoid the problem from the beginning. They also have all of the responsibility if there was a negligent failure to take appropriate care in choosing their target. Now if the homeowner happens to be a meth distributor, he has no reasonable expectation to assume that it is much more likely to be bad guys. It's about an even split, and that's his own darn fault. I have no sympathy for the bad guys. Go get 'em.

happyguy
08-08-2012, 06:57
Jeez people, here's the deal.

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that under the Indiana Constitution a citizen did not have the right to defend themselves against a law enforcement officer under any circumstances.

The legislature fixed what the court screwed up. That's all.

This is nothing but a tempest in a teapot. Time to move on.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

Bren
08-08-2012, 13:50
Jeez people, here's the deal.

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that under the Indiana Constitution a citizen did not have the right to defend themselves against a law enforcement officer under any circumstances.

That is mostly the interpretation of internet nuts and politicians using the story for thei own purposes.

In Indiana, Mr. Barnes was convicted of a few charges, including assaulting an offficer who was, it appears legally, entering his apartment on a domestic violence complaiint. He requested a jury instruction that,
When an arrest is attempted by means of a forceful and unlawful entry into a citizen's home, such entry represents the use of excessive force, and the arrest cannot be considered peaceable. Therefore, a citizen has the right to reasonably resist the unlawful entry.
In most states, that is not the law. Instead, citizens are expected to sort such things out peacefully, using the courts.

What the Indiana Supreme Court said is an interesting overview of the issue. However, the key is that they only ruled on using force to prevent an unlawful entry - not on using force in self-defense, or to prevent other crimes - it is limited to sing force against the police, to stop them from coming into a house, based solely on the resident's opinion of what the law is. As we see on this forum, most laymen have no idea at all what the law is, governing such things. From Barnes v. State:

Now this Court is faced for the first time with the question of whether Indiana should recognize the common-law right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers. We conclude that public policy disfavors any such right. Accordingly, the trial court's refusal to give Barnes's tendered instruction was not error.

The English common-law right to resist unlawful police action existed for over three hundred years, and some scholars trace its origin to the Magna Carta in 1215. Craig Hemmens & Daniel Levin, “Not a Law at All”: A Call for the Return to the Common Law Right to Resist Unlawful Arrest, 29 Sw. U.L.Rev. 1, 9 (1999). The United States Supreme Court recognized this right in Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529, 535, 20 S.Ct. 729, 44 L.Ed. 874 (1900): “If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest.” The Supreme Court has affirmed this right as recently as 1948. United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 594, 68 S.Ct. 222, 92 L.Ed. 210 (1948) (“One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases.”).

In the 1920s, legal scholarship began criticizing the right as valuing individual liberty over physical security of the officers. Hemmens & Levin, supra, at 18. One scholar noted that the common-law right came from a time where “resistance to an arrest by a peace officer did not involve the serious dangers it does today.” Sam B. Warner, The Uniform Arrest Act, 28 Va. L.Rev. 315, 330 (1942). The Model Penal Code eliminated the right on two grounds: “(1) the development of alternate remedies for an aggrieved arrestee, and (2) the use of force by the arrestee was likely to result in greater injury to the person without preventing the arrest.” Hemmens & Levin, supra, at 23. In response*576 to this criticism, a majority of states have abolished the right via statutes in the 1940s and judicial opinions in the 1960s. Id. at 24–25.

The Court of Appeals addressed this issue in Casselman v. State, 472 N.E.2d 1310, 1318 (Ind.Ct.App.1985). In Casselman, the defendant did not appear at a judgment proceeding on the advice of his attorney. Id. at 1311. When the sheriff's deputy went to his home to effect a civil arrest, the defendant attempted to close the door in the deputy's face. A brief struggle ensued, and the defendant was arrested when he retreated into his house. Id. at 1311–12. The Court of Appeals found that the deputy “was not lawfully engaged in the execution of civil process” when he pre-vented the defendant from closing the door to his home. Id. at 1314. Although the Court of Appeals acknowledged the trend of abolishing the common-law right to resist an unlawful arrest, it ultimately focused on the heightened expectation of privacy in one's home and recognized a right to resist an unlawful entry into a home by a police offi-cer. Id. at 1315–18.

We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is in-compatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action. E.g., Warner, supra, at 330 (citing the dangers of arrest at common law—indefinite detention, lack of bail, disease-infested prisons, physical torture—as reasons for recogniz-ing the right to resist); State v. Hobson, 218 Wis.2d 350, 577 N.W.2d 825, 835–36 (1998) (citing the following modern developments: (1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3) the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies). We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties in-volved without preventing the arrest—as evident by the facts of this instant case. E.g., Hobson, 577 N.W.2d at 836 (“But in arrest situations that are often ripe for rapid escalation, one's ‘measured’ response may fast become exces-sive.”). Further, we note that a warrant is not necessary for every entry into a home. For example, officers may enter the home if they are in “hot pursuit” of the arrestee or if exigent circumstances justified the entry. E.g., United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42–43, 96 S.Ct. 2406, 49 L.Ed.2d 300 (1976) (holding that retreat into a defendant's house could not thwart an otherwise proper arrest made in the course of a “hot pursuit”); Holder v. State, 847 N.E.2d 930, 938 (Ind.2006) (“Possible imminent destruction of evidence is one exigent circumstance that may justify a warrantless entry into a home if the fear on the part of the police that the evidence was immediately about to be destroyed is objectively reasonable.”). Even with a warrant, officers may have acted in good faith in entering a home, only to find later that their entry was in error. E.g., Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 11, 115 S.Ct. 1185, 131 L.Ed.2d 34 (1994); United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922–25, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance.

Here, the trial court's failure to give the proffered jury instruction was not error. Because we decline to rec-ognize the right to reasonably resist an unlawful * police entry, we need not decide the legality of the officers' entry into Barnes's apartment. We note, however, that the officers were investigating a “domestic violence in progress” in response to a 911 call. A 911 call generally details emergency or exigent circumstances requiring swift police action. In these cases, the officers are responding to rapidly changing or escalating events, and their initial response is often based on limited information. The officers cannot properly assess the complaint and the dangers to those threatened without some limited access to the involved parties. It is unrealistic to expect officers to wait for threats to escalate and for violence to become imminent before intervening. Here, the officers acted reasonably under the totality of the circumstances.

In sum, we hold that Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law. Accordingly, the trial court's failure to give Barnes's proffered jury instruction on this right was not error.

Skyhook
08-08-2012, 14:02
Obviously what we citizens need are more glib lawyers with their train loads of vocabulary to explain to us why we have to submit.:upeyes: Why we can no longer tuck our kids and wives into bed at night with any significant feeling of security and freedom from government brutality.

Why we need to accept the fact that some poorly-trained, affirmative action sub-qualified employee of the sheriff's dept can turn our lives completely upside down.

Livestock on most farms have better care. :shakehead:

series1811
08-08-2012, 14:27
I've had guns pulled on me by other law enforcment officers by mistake.

How did I survive instead of becoming a news story and an entry on the police memorial?

By not being stupid. It works.

snerd
08-08-2012, 16:20
I've had guns pulled on me by other law enforcment officers by mistake.

How did I survive instead of becoming a news story and an entry on the police memorial?

By not being stupid. It works.

Any "mistakes" of that magnitude should err on the side of the citizenry, not the side of a government agent. You've gotten it all backwards over time.

Big Mad Dawg
08-09-2012, 04:38
It’s the same old story police want to be safe while performing a vital need service, we civilians (police officers are civilians too) want to be safe in our own homes. The problem comes when for whatever reason the police bust in on an innocent person willing to stand in defensive of his home. I understand the complications that police face but if you use a procedure like no knocks then you might face a dangerous situation. I have never been arrested I have a clean driving record and am very anti drugs of any kind so like Doc if someone tries to breach my door in the middle of the night it will be bad guys and I will react accordingly. If the police want to come please show up in uniform and announced and then everyone will be safe and happy.

series1811
08-09-2012, 05:24
Any "mistakes" of that magnitude should err on the side of the citizenry, not the side of a government agent. You've gotten it all backwards over time.

Well, see, from having done it for a long time, I realize that law enforcement, while pretty good at figuring situations out, are not psychic, and as a result, I have learned how to mediate blue on blue, (or blue on white) situations, rather than escalate them.

For example, if you are a plainclothes federal drug agent, going out of his way to not look like a cop, which I was for a long time, and a uniformed officer mistakes you for someone committing a crime with a gun, no matter how much you know you are in the right and doing your job, you are an absolute moron, if you don't do exactly what he says to do until you have things straightened out.

Ego and stupid get you killed. Common sense, and even a sense of humor about it, makes it a funny story later.

ModGlock17
08-12-2012, 07:21
Lets just say I've been involved in a few out of country "no knock" events. Even watched a wall breach or two. Watched several rooms/buildings cleared by explosives. Our rules of engagement allowed a lot more leeway.

If the first assault is repulsed for any reason, we could simply call in close air support, a fast mover, or artillery. We always won too.

I have no doubt that I would lose in the end if it happened to be a SWAT team, but if I were somehow able to repulse the first team trying but getting unexpectedly stalled at the door, with 8 very quickly fired 12 gauge slugs through the door at hip level, I'm probably screwed.

They aren't going to back off and call the land line to try to talk me out at that point, the out of town replacements would show up and they would be looking for revenge. No sweat, so would I.

You have to understand something. I've seen more people shot, stabbed, crushed, and blown up in my time to remove any curiosity about what it looks like. It ain't pretty, and it ain't glorious. It's ugly squared. I have absolutely no desire to ever hurt another human being. I admire and respect those that are willing to take on the dangerous jobs that no one else wants to do. It would crush me to hurt someone undeserving, like the first six guys serving a screwed up no knock warrant on my house.


But you have to understand things from my perspective. I don't do drugs. I don't lie, cheat or steal. I don't have any pedophile tendencies. I don't cheat on my taxes. I don't speed (more than 4 miles over :whistling:).

I'm one of the good guys, I do nothing to draw the attention of the police or any other authorities.

I HAVE to assume that my local LEO's are good guys, and would not mistakenly try to kick in my front door. I HAVE to assume that it's bad guys, and that the fight is on. I do not fight fair, win or lose, I will be trying to win.


That's why the whole idea of some numbnuts desk jockey typing the wrong address on a warrant is so abhorrent to me. As is a lack of due diligence in making sure you have the right place before you barge in. I think there should be career ending consequences for LEO's that perform their service on the wrong address, especially in high risk no knock warrants. Heck, I deal with that same level of scrutiny every day, I'm not asking for anything that I would be unwilling to subject myself to every day.

So really, what is so unreasonable about my plan when I hear cursing, loud banging and slowly splintering reinforced wood at my door.

I'm willing to leave the world alone, and just want the favor returned.

Been out awhile.. catching up on posts.

This is a GREAT post, Doc. I'm with ya all the way !