Use of force against police?

[GunSlinger 28]

So it passes.

 

http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/5321745-Right-to-resist-police-signed-into-law-by-Ind-governor/

[NDhoosier 1,232]

As a police officer, this scares the shit out of me... When deaths have a statistically significant increase (both officers and civilians), I hope they rethink this law. If you think an officer did something illegal, take it to court, dont fight the police. 98% of the time when people think the police are doing something illegal, they are simply wrong. Most people dont know the law all that well and as an officer, I do not want to get hurt or die because you THINK you know the extent of your rights... Ill be happy to prove you wrong in the court of law, not with the barrel of my gun.

 

I think the media portrayed the original ruling incorrectly (surprising I know...) and made it sound like police could illegally enter your home whenever they wanted without PC. So the public got scared claiming that the police had too much power, but in reality, it just said you couldnt assault a police officer. If the officer entered your home illegally, you could still write an official complaint and take it to court, win the case, and any evidence the officer found while in your house illegally would be thrown out of court.

[2lakes 1]

As a police officer, this scares the shit out of me... When deaths have a statistically significant increase (both officers and civilians), I hope they rethink this law. If you think an officer did something illegal, take it to court, dont fight the police. 98% of the time when people think the police are doing something illegal, they are simply wrong. Most people dont know the law all that well and as an officer, I do not want to get hurt or die because you THINK you know the extent of your rights... Ill be happy to prove you wrong in the court of law, not with the barrel of my gun.

 

I think the media portrayed the original ruling incorrectly (surprising I know...) and made it sound like police could illegally enter your home whenever they wanted without PC. So the public got scared claiming that the police had too much power, but in reality, it just said you couldnt assault a police officer. If the officer entered your home illegally, you could still write an official complaint and take it to court, win the case, and any evidence the officer found while in your house illegally would be thrown out of court.

 

Respect for police officers both inside and outside of our own homes is parmount in the vast majority of cases. Protecting those men and women who put their lives on the line should be one of our top priorities. They should be given the benefit of the doubt.

 

But protection of illegal searches and seizures in private homes: that is a fundamental right written into our constitution. Illegal entry is what happens to people living under dictators and in banana republics and it is what happened to our forefathers under the British government and to black people in the south from the days of slavery through today.

 

Certainly, there are corrupt municipal governments and dirty police officers. If you have done nothing wrong, and someone breaks into your home with bad intentions under the cover of a badge, that is the greatest form of betrayal and tyranny. If a person feels the need to protect their family or their home, then the use of force under those circumstances comes as close to an unalienable right as there is.

Edited March 24, 2012 by 2lakes

[jessemoore97 1,295]

Certainly, there are corrupt municipal governments and dirty police officers. If you have done nothing wrong, and someone breaks into your home with bad intentions under the cover of a badge, that is the greatest form of betrayal and tyranny. If a person feels the need to protect their family or their home, then the use of force under those circumstances comes as close to an unalienable right as there is.

 

Therein lies the rub with this law and way of thinking. Its leaves it up to each individual's interpretation of "I've done nothing wrong" and therefore can fight back against the police with whatever amount of force they deem is necessary to defend themselves, their family, and their property. If I had a dime for every time someone has told me they've done nothing wrong...you get the picture. Everyone tells a police officer that, from speeding up to homicides. Someone can scream it from the mountain top that they are innocent, it doesn't make it so.

 

In regard to search warrants, they are approved by a judge, who officers had to convince there was enough evidence and probable cause to sign in order to execute the warrant. So if I go to serve the warrant at the suspect's house, announce my presence and reason numerous times, so the whole neighborhood is aware of whats happening, that person on the other side of the door can fight, shoot, kill me and other officers because he can say "he's done nothing wrong?" A lawyer can spin this all day long, "the defendant didn't do anything wrong and felt the officers couldn't enter his residence, he knew the officers were armed and feared for his life, and therefore used deadly force to repel their 'intrusion' into his home."

 

Now most likely, one would hope anyhow, that the defendant would still be found guilty of killing or maiming an officer(s). But did it need to happen by allowing people who clearly do not comprehend the entirety of the law(s) to use it as justification to fight the police? Why even open that can of worms where citizens and officers are put at a higher risk because of an ambiguous(at best) definition of a law?

 

I'm all about the protections the 4th Amendment grants citizens, because I'm also one as well as a LEO. We have to abide by the laws in order to search and seize, if we don't then there is a process that one goes through to rectify the situation, the courts. This law allows people who aren't judges or attorneys try to make decisions that belong to the court regarding the validity of search and seizure, and the consequences right or wrong with that process.

[2lakes 1]

Jesse;

 

I have no problem with legal searches, whether or not the homeowner thinks they are without blame. This is about illegal searches, and a homeowner believing that their life or liberty is at stake. That is truly a 4th Amendment issue without equivocation and established early on in US history as an inalienable right.

 

We do not live in a police state. I have lived in one, and it is not pretty. And, although I trust the vast majority of officers in our country, there are those who I would be a fool to trust with my life or the life of my loved ones. And I would protect myself, my home, and my family from an illegal search by those individuals whether or not they claimed to be on the job.

[NDhoosier 1,232]

Certainly, there are corrupt municipal governments and dirty police officers. If you have done nothing wrong, and someone breaks into your home with bad intentions under the cover of a badge, that is the greatest form of betrayal and tyranny. If a person feels the need to protect their family or their home, then the use of force under those circumstances comes as close to an unalienable right as there is.

 

Therein lies the rub with this law and way of thinking. Its leaves it up to each individual's interpretation of "I've done nothing wrong" and therefore can fight back against the police with whatever amount of force they deem is necessary to defend themselves, their family, and their property. If I had a dime for every time someone has told me they've done nothing wrong...you get the picture. Everyone tells a police officer that, from speeding up to homicides. Someone can scream it from the mountain top that they are innocent, it doesn't make it so.

 

In regard to search warrants, they are approved by a judge, who officers had to convince there was enough evidence and probable cause to sign in order to execute the warrant. So if I go to serve the warrant at the suspect's house, announce my presence and reason numerous times, so the whole neighborhood is aware of whats happening, that person on the other side of the door can fight, shoot, kill me and other officers because he can say "he's done nothing wrong?" A lawyer can spin this all day long, "the defendant didn't do anything wrong and felt the officers couldn't enter his residence, he knew the officers were armed and feared for his life, and therefore used deadly force to repel their 'intrusion' into his home."

 

Now most likely, one would hope anyhow, that the defendant would still be found guilty of killing or maiming an officer(s). But did it need to happen by allowing people who clearly do not comprehend the entirety of the law(s) to use it as justification to fight the police? Why even open that can of worms where citizens and officers are put at a higher risk because of an ambiguous(at best) definition of a law?

 

I'm all about the protections the 4th Amendment grants citizens, because I'm also one as well as a LEO. We have to abide by the laws in order to search and seize, if we don't then there is a process that one goes through to rectify the situation, the courts. This law allows people who aren't judges or attorneys try to make decisions that belong to the court regarding the validity of search and seizure, and the consequences right or wrong with that process.

 

Exactly, you are right on the money. I too understand the 4th Amendment and how important it is to our society 2lakes.

 

Here is the example that scares me and officers across the state. I get a call that a man is beating his wife, I arrive at the house and observe the man hit the woman, I enter the house and attempt to arrest him. What do you think the reaction of the man will be? I am sorry officer, I hit my wife, now put me in handcuffs sir... no it will be %^%^ you, get out of my house, I will defend my "castle."

 

This shit happens when the violation is clear, even to the suspect himself. Do you know how many people tell me that they did nothing wrong on a daily basis. This law gives them the idea that cops cant enter your home without your permission (we can if we have PC, but you need some class or training, because it gets complicated... very complicated) and will use whatever force to keep us out.

 

When it comes to force, I have a LED, OC spray, baton, and a gun. Whatever weapon you pick up, I will go a step higher. These encounters are much more likely to end violently and even deadly compared to now.

 

Again 2lakes, this ruling never allowed officers to enter your home without PC, if an officer does not have PC to enter your house, file a complaint and you will be charged with nothing, even if he finds crack in your house. This law does not affect the 4th Amendment but how people can react to issues regarding it and their interpretation of whether the officer is in their house illegally (which is usually incorrect because of biased reasons, no one does anything wrong officer)

Edited March 24, 2012 by NDhoosier

[2lakes 1]

Exactly, you are right on the money. I too understand the 4th Amendment and how important it is to our society 2lakes.

 

Here is the example that scares me and officers across the state. I get a call that a man is beating his wife, I arrive at the house and observe the man hit the woman, I enter the house and attempt to arrest him. What do you think the reaction of the man will be? I am sorry officer, I hit my wife, now put me in handcuffs sir... no it will be %^%^ you, get out of my house, I will defend my "castle."

 

This shit happens when the violation is clear, even to the suspect himself. Do you know how many people tell me that they did nothing wrong on a daily basis. This law gives them the idea that cops cant enter your home without your permission (we can if we have PC, but you need some class or training, because it gets complicated... very complicated) and will use whatever force to keep us out.

 

When it comes to force, I have a LED, OC spray, baton, and a gun. Whatever weapon you pick up, I will go a step higher. These encounters are much more likely to end violently and even deadly compared to now.

 

Again 2lakes, this ruling never allowed officers to enter your home without PC, if an officer does not have PC to enter your house, file a complaint and you will be charged with nothing, even if he finds crack in your house. This law does not affect the 4th Amendment but how people can react to issues regarding it and their interpretation of whether the officer is in their house illegally (which is usually incorrect because of biased reasons, no one does anything wrong officer)

 

Your example looks like a clear cut case of exigent circumstance or PC that by law does not require a search warrant. But this is also where it gets muddy. Because PC or exigent circumstances involves some subjectivity.

 

And so common sense comes into play. There have been instances when officers have abused power and the idea of exigent circumstances or PC in order to harass, intimidate, and harm a citizen. In those cases, what good does it do for society to force a person to allow an invasion of their home and put their lives or the lives of their family members at risk? Our laws must find the proper balance between the protection of human rights and the protection of our civil servants.

Edited March 24, 2012 by 2lakes

[SpeedsterX 652]

Here we go,,,,

 

This is not only a house issue, it's also property, car or on the street.

 

All I have to say is this hurts the citizens the most because if you think I am going to risk my life any more than I already do, you're nuts.

 

Good luck 2Lakes! Hope you are loaded for bear. They have tied the hands of possibly your only backup.

[2lakes 1]

Here we go,,,,

 

This is not only a house issue, it's also property, car or on the street.

 

All I have to say is this hurts the citizens the most because if you think I am going to risk my life any more than I already do, you're nuts.

 

Good luck 2Lakes! Hope you are loaded for bear. They have tied the hands of possibly your only backup.

 

Not loaded for bear, so I'm just going to have to use a full nelson.

 

Seriously, I thought about letting this thread die because I do not feel comfortable with where it has gone, or everything I wrote for that matter. This is why for the most part I stay away from the Open Forums. However, quitting at this stage is not the best answer.

 

So I'll finish my part in the discussion with this: usually it comes down to common sense. If an officer is attempting to discharge his/her duty to serve and protect and even knowingly enters a home illegally, then the weight of the law should protect the civil servant. On the other hand, if an officer enters a home or confiscates property and the citizen believes it is being done in order to intimidate, harass, or harm them, then that citizen should have the right to protect themself. The devil, then, is in the details of determining the intent of the officer and the citizen.

 

How does the law in question stack up to that criteria?

 

Another way of looking at this general subject:

1. If someone attempted to confiscate your vehicle, you would resist them.

2. If someone forcibly attempted to enter your home, you would resist them.

3. If someone entered your home and you thought they were a threat to your family, you would act to neutralize the invader.

 

Now what if this person is clearly a police officer? In scenario 1 and 2, you would probably not resist. In scenario 3, if you truly believed the officer was going to harm your family, then you probably still would use violence to protect them.

 

Now what if the officer in question appeared to be off duty, was not properly identified, or appeared to be intentionally acting outside the law?

 

These are not easy questions to answer.

Edited March 27, 2012 by 2lakes

[echo88 74]

Ok, I will go with you a bit on that line of thought. However, IF someone were to react to them as intruders, i would suggest that the homeowner be protected from prosecution.

 

The problem with that, however, is the number of times they announce and identify themselves as police. They do it before and during execution---even when they know they have the right house. If you're innocent, you know it's the police and not an intruder. If you're a violent, wanted felon, you know that if you fire back, you're a dead man.

 

That and there arent many intruders who make that much noise before entering a home, carry a breaching tool, and work in teams of 15-20.

[jon33dn 0]

The problem with that, however, is the number of times they announce and identify themselves as police. They do it before and during execution---even when they know they have the right house. If you're innocent, you know it's the police and not an intruder. If you're a violent, wanted felon, you know that if you fire back, you're a dead man.

 

That and there arent many intruders who make that much noise before entering a home, carry a breaching tool, and work in teams of 15-20.

 

the point of the law was to protect the home owner from prosecution, and to put the law on the side of the innocent home owner.

 

Clearly we should be protecting the equally innocent officers all that we can, but they are choosing that job, entering a home where they feel the need to break a door down... i mean come on... talk about common sense. If the home owner reacts in a way that he/she believes they are protecting their home, family, and property, they should not be prosecuted... it's pretty simple.

 

I disagree with the suggestion above that this will be invoked like the 'castle' doctrine.

 

I tend to agree that should you fire back, or resist in ANY way that endangers or God forbid injures an officer, that you will be made to regret it by his buddies coming in behind him... that doesnt make it right.

 

Regarding the application of common sense...

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/31/drug-search-trekies-stopped-searched-illinois_n_1364087.html

 

Try that one on for size... I cannot STAND stuff like this.

[DomerinHappyValley 0]

I'm seeing this law being applied when there is a mistake made with a no knock warrant.

Those mistakes aren't made to often but they are made often enough and all to often it's the homeowner who has to pay.

If this law ends LE receiving a no knock warrant then I'm all for it.