Double Edged Sword, Are the Police In Danger?

[RaceFan]

[blue adept]

I would say not, the police rarely take on a residence unless they have an entire posse, the people that have to worry is the citizen that gets wrongfully targeted, and yes folks, that happens to frequently.

[Todd Ianuzzi]

I would say not, the police rarely take on a residence unless they have an entire posse, the people that have to worry is the citizen that gets wrongfully targeted, and yes folks, that happens to frequently.

I read this case the day it came out and thought what is the Big Megillah? The court decided the case based upon the erroneous tendered jury instruction. The common law right to resist illegal law enforcement actions had been knocked out ot the Uniform Law of Arrest, the Model Penal Code and the common law of many states.



I This law will get people hurt or killed. Most lawyers I know are no longer constitutional scholars and cannot recall and apply applicable law in the time of a blink of an eye.

I see the blowback of this law working like this. Jailhouse lawyers and their cellies and podmates will “cite” this case stating that if a cop is in your face and has no right to arrest you or toss your crib, you can take him out.

Drinking buddies all over Indiana will repeat this story with all its misinterpretations and lack of nuance. Militia types will add it to their manifestoes.

And I also agree with Paul. My understanding of the state of Indiana District courts virtually shuts the door on most litigants. But that failing does not change my belief in the inadvisibility of passing SB 1. And the fact that we are talking about SB 1 is in itself a bit telling.

Ain’t God been good to Indiana.

REPLY

[crimore]

I would say not, the police rarely take on a residence unless they have an entire posse, the people that have to worry is the citizen that gets wrongfully targeted, and yes folks, that happens to frequently.

With all due respect, I'm curious on how you came up with this. Citizens being wrongfully targeted, I've read about in the news and one time is to frequent. That I agree with.

However the first part where "Police rarely take on a residence unless they have an entire posse". In my experience there are rarely more than 2 officers, and many times there are single officers entering a residence.

I'm not here for a debate, I'm just just curious on how you came up with what you say so I can better understand.

[blue adept]

With all due respect, I'm curious on how you came up with this. Citizens being wrongfully targeted, I've read about in the news and one time is to frequent. That I agree with.

However the first part where "Police rarely take on a residence unless they have an entire posse". In my experience there are rarely more than 2 officers, and many times there are single officers entering a residence.

I'm not here for a debate, I'm just just curious on how you came up with what you say so I can better understand.

I am referring to the take-downs of suspected drug sellers, or makers. They are usually conducted in the middle of the night by swat teams. I am not talking about a cop coming to your door to talk to you.

[crimore]

I am referring to the take-downs of suspected drug sellers, or makers. They are usually conducted in the middle of the night by swat teams. I am not talking about a cop coming to your door to talk to you.

Ok, I understand where your coming from now.

In 15 years I've taken part in those types of "Posse's" 3 times and all included Warrants, me sitting outside while highly trained officers take care of securing the residence.

Numerous times a week Officer's have to enter homes for family fights where at least 1 person doesn't want them there. Then there's the 20 something who attempts to harm themself only to notify family of their goodbyes. They normally aren't to happy to see Officer's enter their house either. Residental Alarms with an open door, and the home belongs to a Sovereign Citizen. They really don't like an Officer to come in. Those are just a few of the weekly activities that enclude being in a residence where officers may not be wanted.

I'm personally more concerned about the person who is influenced by chemicals, or "Mental" issues than the "normal" citizen. Mix that with the understanding that you can defend your home against an Officer who you don't know has Probably Cause or not.... Scary situation that will ultimately cause officers not to act. In my opinion.

Of course I'm in it to make a difference so if dieing at the hands of this law happens then so be it. Hopefully I've made a difference in somebody's life by that point, and hopefully those "Yay's" on the bill have no problem sleeping at night when the inevitable happens.

But I understand your point with today's media and internet access in mind.

[blue adept]

Ok, I understand where your coming from now.

In 15 years I've taken part in those types of "Posse's" 3 times and all included Warrants, me sitting outside while highly trained officers take care of securing the residence.

Numerous times a week Officer's have to enter homes for family fights where at least 1 person doesn't want them there. Then there's the 20 something who attempts to harm themself only to notify family of their goodbyes. They normally aren't to happy to see Officer's enter their house either. Residental Alarms with an open door, and the home belongs to a Sovereign Citizen. They really don't like an Officer to come in. Those are just a few of the weekly activities that enclude being in a residence where officers may not be wanted.

I'm personally more concerned about the person who is influenced by chemicals, or "Mental" issues than the "normal" citizen. Mix that with the understanding that you can defend your home against an Officer who you don't know has Probably Cause or not.... Scary situation that will ultimately cause officers not to act. In my opinion.

Of course I'm in it to make a difference so if dieing at the hands of this law happens then so be it. Hopefully I've made a difference in somebody's life by that point, and hopefully those "Yay's" on the bill have no problem sleeping at night when the inevitable happens.

But I understand your point with today's media and internet access in mind.

I don't really have a problem with cops doing what they are paid to do, my problem comes when they bust down the wrong door, and the people they are confronting are just ordinary citizens who may be fearing for their life. I have watched several of these on liveleaks and u-tube that go horribly awry, and the cops deny all culpability, or responsibility. In one case they CSed the womens home, and the woman had to pay for the cleanup[considerable] by herself.

[ferratus]

I don't really have a problem with cops doing what they are paid to do, my problem comes when they bust down the wrong door, and the people they are confronting are just ordinary citizens who may be fearing for their life. I have watched several of these on liveleaks and u-tube that go horribly awry, and the cops deny all culpability, or responsibility. In one case they CSed the womens home, and the woman had to pay for the cleanup[considerable] by herself.

This is complete crap <--------- regarding the statement about the lady. If what your saying is correct then the respective agencies insurance should have covered repairs , and or clean up.

I am a strong supporter of individual rights and belief that my home is my castle.

Now regarding this new " Law ". Plain and simple it is a recipe for disaster. Law Enforcement and Civilians could get killed over this law and for nothing..... I am sure a lot of people here on this site ( not many regular posters ) know what the term " reasonable " is. Where the problem sits is this. Imagine out of 20 people that you know or run into in the course of the day and what THEY deem as " reasonable ". I bet if you talked to 20 people you run into in the course of the day you will find 80 percent of them barely know any " Real " law. ( the exception of course being law enforcement officer, court staff )
They know what they see on TV and accept it as fact. That is where the problem is going to take place. I pray that I am wrong but I feel that as usual some people are going to take the extreme and the rest is history.

I know when the ISC ruling came down cops around here changed nothing. You still needed a warrant and probable cause before even thinking about entering someone's home. This law was a knee jerk reaction to people's reaction to that initial ruling.

[Todd Ianuzzi]

This is complete crap <--------- regarding the statement about the lady. If what your saying is correct then the respective agencies insurance should have covered repairs , and or clean up.

I am a strong supporter of individual rights and belief that my home is my castle.

Now regarding this new " Law ". Plain and simple it is a recipe for disaster. Law Enforcement and Civilians could get killed over this law and for nothing..... I am sure a lot of people here on this site ( not many regular posters ) know what the term " reasonable " is. Where the problem sits is this. Imagine out of 20 people that you know or run into in the course of the day and what THEY deem as " reasonable ". I bet if you talked to 20 people you run into in the course of the day you will find 80 percent of them barely know any " Real " law. ( the exception of course being law enforcement officer, court staff )
They know what they see on TV and accept it as fact. That is where the problem is going to take place. I pray that I am wrong but I feel that as usual some people are going to take the extreme and the rest is history.

I know when the ISC ruling came down cops around here changed nothing. You still needed a warrant and probable cause before even thinking about entering someone's home. This law was a knee jerk reaction to people's reaction to that initial ruling.

There are exceptions to the warrant requirement for entering a home. One is "hot pursuit", when police are actively pursuing a suspect. "Exigent circumstances" would be a situtation where entry is required to prevent harm. Another would be plain view, where someone left a meth cooker in the front window, although in that case the officers would probably secure the home and call in a warrant. But in all these cases, the circumstances provide the "Probable cause"

[HoosierHelen]

Now regarding this new " Law ". Plain and simple it is a recipe for disaster. Law Enforcement and Civilians could get killed over this law and for nothing..... I am sure a lot of people here on this site ( not many regular posters ) know what the term " reasonable " is.

If you find that many of the regular posters on this site do not understand the term ‘reasonable’, this must be an indication that you disagree with our expressed thoughts and opinions?

Interesting….especially if you feel our thoughts and opinions are unreasonable, it would seem ‘reasonable’ that you state your case for your differing opinion? I realize this is a bit more difficult to do than simply tossing a casual insult, however, it can be far more thought provoking, civil, and constructive.

[Todd Ianuzzi]

If you find that many of the regular posters on this site do not understand the term ‘reasonable’, this must be an indication that you disagree with our expressed thoughts and opinions?

Interesting….especially if you feel our thoughts and opinions are unreasonable, it would seem ‘reasonable’ that you state your case for your differing opinion? I realize this is a bit more difficult to do than simply tossing a casual insult, however, it can be far more thought provoking, civil, and constructive.

"Reasonable" is an objective judgement, viewed retrospectively in regard to any specific conduct. General guidelines can be developed to map the frontiers of general conduct, but it is one of those terms that defies complete predictability.

[HoosierHelen]

"Reasonable" is an objective judgement, viewed retrospectively in regard to any specific conduct. General guidelines can be developed to map the frontiers of general conduct, but it is one of those terms that defies complete predictability.

I agree Todd. You and I could listen to the same debate on any given topic and very possibly we each could reach a different conclusion given the same information. This would not necessarily mean that one of us was unreasonable.

[blue adept]

This is complete crap <--------- regarding the statement about the lady. If what your saying is correct then the respective agencies insurance should have covered repairs , and or clean up.

I am a strong supporter of individual rights and belief that my home is my castle.

Now regarding this new " Law ". Plain and simple it is a recipe for disaster. Law Enforcement and Civilians could get killed over this law and for nothing..... I am sure a lot of people here on this site ( not many regular posters ) know what the term " reasonable " is. Where the problem sits is this. Imagine out of 20 people that you know or run into in the course of the day and what THEY deem as " reasonable ". I bet if you talked to 20 people you run into in the course of the day you will find 80 percent of them barely know any " Real " law. ( the exception of course being law enforcement officer, court staff )
They know what they see on TV and accept it as fact. That is where the problem is going to take place. I pray that I am wrong but I feel that as usual some people are going to take the extreme and the rest is history.

I know when the ISC ruling came down cops around here changed nothing. You still needed a warrant and probable cause before even thinking about entering someone's home. This law was a knee jerk reaction to people's reaction to that initial ruling.

I am not sure if you are saying that my statement is crap, or what the cops are doing is crap, but I can show you several instances where this happens.


http://newworldorderreport.com/News/...on-camera.aspx

http://www.newmexicotreatmentcenters...s-can-cost-you

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ONG-house.html

http://www.kmtr.com/news/local/story...4QBqIO5Kg.cspx

[Todd Ianuzzi]

I agree Todd. You and I could listen to the same debate on any given topic and very possibly we each could reach a different conclusion given the same information. This would not necessarily mean that one of us was unreasonable.

Helen.

"Resonable" is a term that is found thosands of the time in the law and the consitution. It is us for the judge or (usually) the jury to make a determination in any given case in what is reasonable. And yes, people will often disgaree what is ""resonable."

[ferratus]

If you find that many of the regular posters on this site do not understand the term ‘reasonable’, this must be an indication that you disagree with our expressed thoughts and opinions?

Interesting….especially if you feel our thoughts and opinions are unreasonable, it would seem ‘reasonable’ that you state your case for your differing opinion? I realize this is a bit more difficult to do than simply tossing a casual insult, however, it can be far more thought provoking, civil, and constructive.

Helen , I do not know you personally so I would not attack you on a personal level. What I said was that " Not regular posters " ---- I cannot think of a more proper term for people who do not post often..... and the rest was directed at street level encounters.

Todd.... that is the problem and I thank you for assisting in pointing it out. Reasonable can be defined by the individual so many different ways which just makes or supports my statement further. As far as the other part of your post where you commented on " fresh pursuit, or various other exigent circumstances " ..... I am well aware of what is needed.... If need be I can include them all but the point I was trying to make was that cops in this area ( DeKalb ) did not change any behavior regarding the ruling that came down. They did things just as they did before.