[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Gundude

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]

Originally Posted by CitizenOfDreams

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]

Originally Posted by Bren

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]

They do Doc,you've seen it.'08.

[beforeobamabans]

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]

Originally Posted by series1811

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]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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]

Originally Posted by Bren

.......... 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]

Originally Posted by Bren

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 ).

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]

Originally Posted by mntrpr

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]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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 ).

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]

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]

Originally Posted by snerd

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]

Originally Posted by youngdocglock

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by happyguy

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]

Obviously what we citizens need are more glib lawyers with their train loads of vocabulary to explain to us why we have to submit. 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.

[series1811]

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]

Originally Posted by series1811

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]

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]

Originally Posted by snerd

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]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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 ).

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 !