Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mephisto]

In Indiana, you can.

The article is a sensationalist piece of trash, but it's the first source I found.

[Post scrubbed. No drama intended.]

[Duuvian]

Wow. Mitch Daniels, now I see why people speak well of you. That took some guts.

The law makes sense because if a guy can't leave his house or get arrested or shot by police; then that's house arrest already and in an age when communication short of carrier pigeon can probably be intercepted or interrupted if so desired it would be tough to say they could still be dangerous to the public.

[kaijyuu]

What a wonderful rationalization. Tell me, how does your virtuous action of killing someone differ from their virtuous action of trying to stop a suspected crime? I'm certain those "thugs" feel they're doing the right thing, even though they're not. As long as we're justifying violent actions as good and wholesome, why is your justification superior?

[Duuvian]

What a wonderful rationalization. Tell me, how does your virtuous action of killing someone differ from their virtuous action of trying to stop a suspected crime? I'm certain those "thugs" feel they're doing the right thing, even though they're not. As long as we're justifying violent actions as good and wholesome, why is your justification superior?

Because this might encourage a siege instead of storming a castle?

That's besides the point though and it might be an unintended sideaffect. The key word is illegally. As far as I know they can still get papers that say it's ok.

[ggamer]

I am sort of meh on this subject. If a police officer enters my home, i'll trust him to do so in a safe, legal way. If he bursts into my home with a gun drawn, and points said gun at me, then I will incapacitate him.

That being said, I would never shoot to kill somebody. If a thug goes onto your property, a few shots in the air will scare them off. Worse comes to worse, no one can hurt you with a .45 round in their kneecap.

[Aqizzar]

The [state Supreme Court] ruled that there was “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”

It is exactly this kind of instance where I find a thread of commonality between myself and the wingnuts, because that right there is a terrifying statement to me.  Unlawful entry is unlawful entry, whether its a police officer or anybody else.

Now, depending on the circumstances of the case, I could see the court ruling that the office had a right to enter without a warrant if he reasonably believed a crime was immanent.  It's an easily abused concept, but I accept the rationale.  But that's not the ruling presented, and it's tangential to the case.  Even if the court had said the officer had a right to enter, depending on the circumstances, and before anybody accuses me of waffling determining circumstances is exactly why trials are held, the guy could still reasonably have not known it was the police and shot him in defense.  But that's still not the ruling presented.  The ruling presented was, even if a police officer unlawfully enters your home you do not have a right to resist (I can't speculate on what they might have thought "reasonable").

So I suppose I'll take this likely one and only opportunity to thank Governor Mitch Daniels and his legislative allies for putting a bold foot down in American jurisprudence and eliminating any confusion about just how far the right to make a panicked defense of your home extends when the watchmen come knocking (if you'll permit the hyperbole).  Hey, the stars have to align once in a while.

Now to wait for some Indiana Tea Partier to take this as an Open Season call on all government employees everywhere.

[Mephisto]

What a wonderful rationalization. Tell me, how does your virtuous action of killing someone differ from their virtuous action of trying to stop a suspected crime? I'm certain those "thugs" feel they're doing the right thing, even though they're not. As long as we're justifying violent actions as good and wholesome, why is your justification superior?

That's the thing. I'm a college student with more than a hundred grand in debt. I'm about to get out in one week. I've heard multiple stories of Ms. Mae sending in thugs to drag you in if they think you might not pay them back when they want. Despite me potentially having a few good jobs lined up pending negotiations, it freaks me out that they can do this.

I've heard stories of the RIAA sending in their thugs when they feel they can win a lawsuit against you, whether you've downloaded anything or not.

I'm not planning on breaking any laws, so where is the suspected crime? It's in the imaginations of the people in charge. I see nothing wrong with defending myself, my fiancee, and my future family from these delusional groups. It's more like something from Orwell's 1984 than something that should actually be legally allowed.

My original post was somewhat spur-of-the-moment and a bit less calm (okay, a lot less calm) than I would like. For that, I apologize. Sometimes, you're passionate about something. It kind of strikes close to home for me.

[Truean]

.... Tell me this is an Onion Article.... Please.

O balls.... This isn't going to end well.

Well conservative court judges, this is the logical conclusion of weakening the 4th amendment and letting police get away with more and more.... [sigh]. This is why police misconduct reports need to be taken seriously instead of brushed under the god damn rug.

Do not like.... Impractical to implement. Dangerous. I've always said, "You don't fight the police. I fight the police, in court, in front of a judge."

Most people simply don't understand the first thing about fourth amendment laws (and until and unless you're willing to take out a $1.5 Million legal malpractice umbrella insurance policy like I have in case you're wrong, you don't know what you think you do), much less how to determine if an officer is "in your home legally," especially to the point where you're confident enough to shoot at an officer. I've got several thick books on the topic and it is not simple. What if you're wrong and it turns out the officers had exigent circumstances because the crack dealer they're chasing ran into your back yard after hopping your neighbor's fence but you don't know this and the only way into your back yard is through your house because there's no space between the buildings (row houses)? Who bears the risk of mistake, legally and practically?

Between laws like this and the fact that judges stray from the traditional enforcement of the constitution (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, etc), I have said it before and I will say it again, democrazy doesn't work.

I do not like all police officers and I've told several of them that to their faces in court, but I foresee some decent ones getting shot and killed because of this misguided venture. The answers is not violence. The answer is putting police up to serious review in front of a court or administrative board that can impose serious punishment if the officer is found to have willfully, knowingly violated the law, or mandate the officer take and pass additional classes on the law if he did so out of ignorance. Even the select officers who have earned my open, notorious hatred for lying in court (that I have proven), do not deserve to get shot. I've been shot, it sucks. Justice is not vengeance.

[Aqizzar]

This is why police misconduct reports need to be taken seriously instead of brushed under the god damn rug.

Do not like.... Impractical to implement. Dangerous. I've always said, "You don't fight the police. I fight the police, in court, in front of a judge."

I know you mean absolutely well Truean.  I know you know what you're talking about, certainly worlds more than anyone else around.  And I know you're technically right.

Here's the thing.  You want police misconduct reports to be taken seriously?  Never have been, never will be, because when when the only body enforcing law on the police is the police themselves, they have absolutely no reason or incentive to take any for action anything but the most egregious of crimes.  You're right, the proper recourse against an unlawful officer is the court.  Indeed, outside of the very narrow circumstances of this new law in one state, legal action is the only recourse.

But here's the kicker that I really wish you'd mention more often.  I can't afford to hire you to fight the police.  If I could, I doubt I could afford much less tolerate the likely years upon years it would take to reach a ruling.  And you know as well as I know that you'd stand a 99% chance of losing the case.  That's not a slight on your skills as a lawyer, it's that I have never once seen the word of an officer lose in court.

I truly feel sorry for every honest police officer out there, let alone every other form of public servant (Child Protective really comes to mind), who is rightly worried that some drunk or paranoid nutjob will takes shots at them in the proper line of duty.  And my answers to them are: You knew the risks when you put on the uniform.  Thank God we have a court system for you to argue for recourse for once.  And if there's one thing I think the legal body should have "zero tolerance" for, it's unlawful use of police power.  If this law makes even one bent officer think twice about kicking down a guy's door and claiming he was stopping a crime, then it was worth it.

[RedKing]

I'm conflicted on this one. On the one hand, yeah I'm in favor of needing to have a warrant. On the other, I work for an agency that has seen more than a few agents lose their lives because of gun nuts thinking "Them jack-booted stormtroopers ain't a-takin my (illegal) guns till they pry 'em from my cold, dead hands!"

[Mephisto]

I'm going to ask a question and it may be hard or impossible for most people to answer.

What's worse? A good police officer getting shot in the line of duty (he willingly sought out to become a police officer - he should know that getting shot is a possibility) by some jackhat who is then apprehended or killed? An innocent citizen getting killed by a bad officer who then has no punishment for doing so?

I would rather the old public servants actually be public servants again and not a self-serving entity.

[Neonivek]

Well laws are catching up.

It wasn't that long ago when we came up with a law that negated resisting arrest in the case of "Unlawful arrest".

[RedKing]

I don't like this narrative of "they knew what they signed up for" as a way of handwaving off an occupational hazard. By the same logic, coal miners have no right to complain about black lung and cave-ins. 

[Truean]

This is why police misconduct reports need to be taken seriously instead of brushed under the god damn rug.

Do not like.... Impractical to implement. Dangerous. I've always said, "You don't fight the police. I fight the police, in court, in front of a judge."

I know you mean absolutely well Truean.  I know you know what you're talking about, certainly worlds more than anyone else around.  And I know you're technically right.

Here's the thing.  You want police misconduct reports to be taken seriously?  Never have been, never will be, because when when the only body enforcing law on the police is the police themselves, they have absolutely no reason or incentive to take any for action anything but the most egregious of crimes.  You're right, the proper recourse against an unlawful officer is the court.  Indeed, outside of the very narrow circumstances of this new law in one state, legal action is the only recourse.

But here's the kicker that I really wish you'd mention more often.  I can't afford to hire you to fight the police.  If I could, I doubt I could afford much less tolerate the likely years upon years it would take to reach a ruling.  And you know as well as I know that you'd stand a 99% chance of losing the case.  That's not a slight on your skills as a lawyer, it's that I have never once seen the word of an officer lose in court.

I truly feel sorry for every honest police officer out there, let alone every other form of public servant (Child Protective really comes to mind), who is rightly worried that some drunk or paranoid nutjob will takes shots at them in the proper line of duty.  And my answers to them are: You knew the risks when you put on the uniform.  Thank God we have a court system for you to argue for recourse for once.  And if there's one thing I think the legal body should have "zero tolerance" for, it's unlawful use of police power.  If this law makes even one bent officer think twice about kicking down a guy's door and claiming he was stopping a crime, then it was worth it.

Actually, agreed on most points.

The cost issue sucks for both you and me. If people can't afford to pay me, then I don't get paid.... The time issue also sucks for both of us, because time is just money on a clock. Justice: they can't afford to pay for it and I can't afford to provide it. Shit, everyone loses. I've been trying to figure a way around this one for years....

As for the chances against the police, you're generally right, but it depends where you are. There are decent department officials like Chief Michael McGrath, who expressly encourages people to film his officers. He goes so far as to film his own officers and release tapes to the press voluntarily. Other police departments in other jurisdictions will arrest you for trying to film their officers. Now, in any event, you may have to prove you aren't just filming officers so thugs will know who the police are to target them, but that's legit. There needs to be a uniform policy on this. There also needs to be an independent review.

I realize the lawsuits I've seen won against the police are not the norm. This is sad and in need of repair.

I'm going to ask a question and it may be hard or impossible for most people to answer.

What's worse? A good police officer getting shot in the line of duty (he willingly sought out to become a police officer - he should know that getting shot is a possibility) by some jackhat who is then apprehended or killed? An innocent citizen getting killed by a bad officer who then has no punishment for doing so?

I would rather the old public servants actually be public servants again and not a self-serving entity.

Injustice begets injustice. Neither is acceptable. Both should be avoided actively by policies meant to curb both outcomes. And quite frankly, the answer is policy and rules that promote accountability, which in many cases we do not effectively have. The answer to not having these polices is to create and implement them, not resort of violence.

Give me a real tool to challenge the police and make the state pay my costs, even reduced costs so I don't go broke doing it. <--- That's a solution.

[nenjin]

I don't like this narrative of "they knew what they signed up for" as a way of handwaving off an occupational hazard. By the same logic, coal miners have no right to complain about black lung and cave-ins. 

I disagree. Coal miners have protections that are ignored by their employers, which lead to their getting black lung or dying in cave-ins, above and beyond the normal occupational hazard of mining.

It's not like Police Officers get ordered to go into hostile situations without body armor, shotguns, enough ammunition, non-lethal weapons and enough backup to neutralize threats. They get all that, and the benefit of the doubt from both the law and citizens. So yes, there's a degree of occupational hazard they accept when they agree to carry a weapon and use deadly force to uphold the law. DOUBLY so if they're making what the law itself defines as unlawful entry.

I prefer the "you knew what you signed up for" rationale to "you've got no right to contest something that's illegal" justification.