The Glade 4.0

Fair enough.



I was reading about resisting illegal arrest in the Berkeley Law School's Criminal Law Journal. The title of the publication has changed from the California Criminal Law Review to the Boalt Journal of Criminal Law. I wasn't sure it was available on line. I found it; the old citation will bring it up:2 Cal. Crim. L. Rev. 2

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

That's my thought as well. It's likely the criminal's going to resist anyway. It seems to be overly broad to say that no one can resist a police officer entering their home for any reason, but that's the way the trend has been for the past few decades.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

It seems that many police officers don't know for sure either.



It is reasonable for an individual to **** up their job from time to time, if their job doesn't inherently hold the power to ruin or end people's lives. It is even less reasonable that many individuals, working collaboratively with (what should be) quite a bit of administrative and judicial oversight should **** up their jobs, and by doing so, **** up peoples lives. If the remuneration was swift and sure, it would be less egregious, but a cursory look at cases where the police have **** up their jobs shows that isn't the case.

In any event, this ruling blatantly disregards the Fourth Amendment in my eyes:

An agent of the government illegally entering my house under the color of law, while I'm bound by that same law to do nothing about it, is surely the antithesis of being secure in my house.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Door jamb armor. http://www.armorconcepts.com/Our-Soluti ... Jamb-Armor
How to reenforce a door frame. http://www.familyhandyman.com/DIY-Proje ... ep-By-Step
Shatter proof window laminate. http://www.shattersafe.com/
Rose bushes, holly bushes, and other pretty plants to keep people out of where they don't need to be. http://www.mfll.co.uk/gardening_for_security.htm
Wireless video cameras. http://www.google.com/search?q=wireless ... 59&bih=610
or http://www.covisec.com/product/JSD-1600 ... ernet.html

add a small locking cabinet in a discreet location to house the recording equipment.

Know if your State issues "no knock" warrants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-knock_warrant
Effects of various rounds on body armor. Other pages also have the effects of the window laminates and locks vs breaching rounds. For information only. http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot16.htm

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Awwww Hannibal, this is why I wuv joo.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

There's also the fact that a lot of these warrants are executed in areas where there is a huge drug/crime problem, so if the police do something like accidentally raid the wrong address, there's a good chance the occupants of that address will also have something illegal going on and assume the cops are raiding them for that. If they then shoot at the cops, they can always claim later that they were resisting an illegal entry, get off scot-free for any cops they killed, not face any charges for their other illegal activity because all that evidence is now excluded, and the city/state will then have to compensate them to the tune of millions for any deaths/injuries/property damage on top of it. That's a major problem. If you're deep in drug dealing enough that getting caught means 25 years to life, it might seem like a good idea to shoot at the cops while trying to escape, and then if you get caught anyway, hope your lawyer can find a mistake in their warrant that then justifies your shooting and makes all your drug dealing irrelevant.

Three issues I have to point out.

Criminals by nature will not follow the law, therefore any law put foth will only be followed by the law abiding. To quote Harvey Keitel in Reservoir dogs "The choice between doing ten years and taking out some stupid ****, ain't no choice at all." So the premise of this law is already flawed. Second, warrants are written very specfically for a reason. If the warrant is to find a stolen shotgun, they can't start opening up your kitchen drawers because obviously a shotgun could not be there. Now if they go in the closet, where the item in question could be, and find a brick of pot in the corner, then it's game on. Third- why do we keep forgetting "innocent until proven guilty" on this board? I don't care if it's Captain Scumbag of the HMS Pedobear. They are innocent until proven god damned guilty and judged by a jury of their peers. We keep rounding the edges and blurring the lines bit by bit until one day, we really do find that we've given them enough rope to hang all of us.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

If police break into your house, you don't have a right to injure them. Acting aggressive towards police officers will just bring you a world of hurt.

So did acting aggressive versus the SS.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

You're not bound to do nothing about it. You're only bound to not physically resist it right then and there. No one is saying you have to "let" them; that would be consenting and you don't have to do that.

I'm not sure why this is a problem for anyone, other than that it may grate on people's sense of their rights to their home. This is actually highly advantageous to the person whose house is being entered. Here is why:

If you know you have done something illegal and they want to come in illegally, just tell them "no". If they go away, you have more time to get rid of the evidence. If they make you let them in, just keep right on not consenting; just don't physically resist. Then, when they do find something, you're golden: it was an illegal search so that evidence can never be used.

Same thing if you don't believe you did anything wrong. They either go away and come back with a warrant, or they come in against your wishes. Now, lets say they find something. Well, guess what? They still can't use that evidence, and now you know what it is they suspect you of and why so you can take steps to deal with it.

In either case, you can now take them to court for the illegal search, and they have one less thing they can charge you with. Sure, the charge might never have stuck since the search was illegal, but now you don't even have to deal with it.

The cops searching you illegally over your objections is one of the best ways to get out of trouble. It's a strategic golden opportunity whether you're innocent or guilty. Sure, you have to swallow your pride a bit, but you're not going to risk getting shot, you're going to win the court case, and you might even come out ahead financially.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I hate to break it to you, but criminals generally will follow the law when its to their advantage to do so. If it's an open question whether you can resist any given search until after the fact, they will resist, and hope for the best. Harvey's silly quote notwithstanding, if Harvey knows he can't take someone out, he'd rather do ten years than be the one getting taken out, and in real life he doesn't have a plot shield protecting him.



While accurate, this is irrelevant. No one is saying that the way warrants work is any different.



We don't. What people here keep forgetting is that "innocent until proven guilty" applies to just that - proving guilt. It governs when punishment may be imposed. It is not a principle that prevents obtaining facts to prove guilt; we have a different amendment for that. Searches are not punishment.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So your position is that by not resisting American police, they might haul you off to non-existent concentration camps?

No one's disputing that. That's why we have courts, to resolve such matters.



People will **** up, regardless of how important their job is. What we need is a system of oversight, like the courts.



Nobody is disputing that. They are clearly violating your rights. If this ever happens to you, you should definitely sue the crap out of them.

No, my position is that without immediate and affecting negative consequences for this action it will breed a level of normalcy for rights violations thus encouraging the bad actions.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Right, because police are like dogs. If it's not an immediate consequence, they can't learn. Court rulings are so far removed from the incident in question that the police can't make the connection between their punishment and the incident.

I use an old coffee can with quarters in it; shaking it makes a noise that startles them. Of course you can't go wrong with the old "No! No! Bad cop!"

No, it's that passively accepting their authority over you in all things, you're encouraging and inviting them to continue.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Saying "no" isn't doing something...
I understand what you're saying, I really do, but we've just got a difference of opinion as to what should be allowed and what should be proscribed while defending our Constitutional rights. You and this Indiana court (along with many others, heheh) are on one side, and I'm on the other.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I prefer, "Bad Cop! No Donut!" myself.

Do you get a rolled up newspaper? I hear a swat on the nose is usually a good deterrent.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

What's tough about it then? If the cops don't know what is a legal and/or unlawful entry and "Joe Schmo isn't qualified"? What point does that establish, what puts that "on the other hand"? If the remuneration was swift and sure, it would be less egregious, but a cursory look at cases where the police have **** up their jobs shows that isn't the case.


That level of **** up by that many people who's responsibility is to not **** up in that manner is unacceptable, especially with the current number and regularity. How many of your engineering projects have you **** up to the level that someone's life was in danger?
It's comforting to know that when a non-police officer invades my home I am within my rights to kill them, yet if a police officer does I can "close my eyes and think of England" - then attempt to retroactively prove my rights were violated by a government entity - in a government court. If the remuneration was swift and sure, it would be less egregious, but a cursory look at cases where the police have **** up their jobs shows that isn't the case.



If the remuneration was swift and sure, it would be less egregious, but a cursory look at cases where the police have **** up their jobs shows that isn't the case.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

All governments will slide closer and closer toward a police state until revolution (violent or otherwise) changes it. Then the slide starts again.

Sadly, it's going to get worse before it gets better.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

The US is so far from a "police state" it's not even funny. People really need to stop bringing that up. When the US gets middling scores on the fairness of its justice system, it's because of how we treat people after they're convicted, not before. Cops in the US have the least power of any country in the world, and noone has more rights than an accused person in the US. Perhaps you would like to live in Italy or France, where it's perfectly legal and routine for the cops to strike you during an interrogation as long as "lasting harm" is not caused. Or in Germany, where illegally obtained evidence is perfectly admissible. In fact, admitting illegally obtained evidence is allowed more often than not even in first world countries, and the "poisonous tree" doctrine is almost uniquely American. Or you could go live in Japan, which has a >99.9% conviction rate due to the fact that the police are allowed to hold you for 23 days before filing charges, and you can be subjected to "continuous" interrogation during that time. Meaning they can say you're not going to get any food or sleep until you sign the confession, and that confession will be admissible.

Yes, but you have to be careful. If you scare them they'll pee on the carpet.

X:
Just because others are worse, doesn't mean we should lower our standards, and passively allow our rights to be eroded. There are reasons the US is the way it is and the other countries are the way they are.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Except you miss the point. Joe Schmo is a) less likely than the cop to know the rules for police entry, and b) if he's wrong and defends his home he's in for some serious legal issues, at minimum. The one hand is it's ok to defend your home, the other hand is Joe Schmo doesn't know when (for sure) he should be defending his home from police. So... best to let the courts handle it after.



Your right. We should take them to court.



Few, but that's irrelevant. My job allows me to **** up without putting people in immdediate harm. A cop's job doesn't. So... again, people will **** up regardless of the importance of their job. It's reality.



I'm glad you are comforted. But you're arguing against a point I haven't made.



So you say, with no data. If everyone opened fire on invading police everytime they "thought" they were invading illegally, I bet you $1 that police "****" would increase dramatically. They'll still **** up and invade, but they'd do so while being a little more prepared to open fire on the residents.