Vindicarre wrote:
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.
The only reason Joe Schmo doesn't know when it's ok to defend his home against illegal entry is because of the convoluted system. If it's ok to defend your home against illegal entry, it shouldn't matter who is doing the illegal entry. [/quote]
Again, you miss the point. Yes, a citizen should be able to defend his home against illegal entry regardless of who is entering. The point is, Joe Schmo often doesn't know what's a legal entry by a cop and what is not. Whether this is because the system is convoluted or not is irrelevent.
Quote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Your right. We should take them to 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.
See below.
Quote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
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.
It's not reality if the **** ups are that severe and that numerous; it's incompetence and it's apparent it's not being rectified.
**** ups are incompetence? Isn't that kind of the point? Regardless, while they occur, they aren't overwhelmingly common from my experience. They do occur frequently enough to be a problem. But, 1) you don't know how numerous, really (i'll look at your link). The fact we here about individual cases suggests to me they aren't overwhelmingly common. 2) in what way is it apparent it's not being rectified? the fact that folks are still **** up? is it the same department or individuals every time? How do you know it's not being rectified. Are you holding the police department to some flawless standard that does not reflect the reality of human nature? 3) what's "severe" about them? unlawful entry is not that severe, especially if it is rectified later in court. How many are not? What do you consider severe? Why does it not reflect reality because the **** ups are severe? What does that have to do with it?
Quote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
I'm glad you are comforted. But you're arguing against a point I haven't made.
It's the only point you're trying to make: "Take them to court".
That's true, but that's not what you are arguing against. You said:
Quote:
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.
Since I said specifically that people have the right to defend themselves and their property, I'm not sure how this is an argument against anything I've said. But yes, I do agree - you can retroactively correct for the rights violation in court. That's a very reasonable suggestion.
Quote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Vindicarre wrote:
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.
So you say, with no data.
The data is well available to you, just as it was the last time you attempted that argument. If you don't believe that suing police officers and police departments is ineffective, make a cursory look and you'll see, or you can wait for a
link and stop posting, just as the last time you attempted this argument.
Show me where I'm disputing this? I'm not disputing this now. In fact, what argument are you making up that you are arguing against? What thread are you talking about from the past? I've been very vocal against police brutality, abuse, and such nonsense on this board, so I find your statement... odd.
Since you are clearly missing it: 1) People will **** up at their jobs. 2) Police are armed and trained, and it's not a good idea to resist them to an excessive degree. 3) You are within your rights to defend yourself and your property. 4) Joe Schmo doesn't know the rules for when it's legal for a cop to force entry. He needs to be careful he doesn't resist a legal entry. 5) It's reasonable to deal with a rights violation in this regard in the court system.
What specific point are you arguing against?
I'll take a look at your link, I haven't seen this before. It's interesting but will take a while to review.
Quote:
Why the need to "open fire" every time? Have the police grown to resemble invading military so much that the only two options when they want to enteryour home are to "open fire" or do noting?
What are you talking about? If people consistently resist violently, you don't think they would enter with preparations to counter this?