The Glade 4.0

http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Indiana_First_State_to_Allow_Citizens_to_Shoot_Law_Enforcement_Officers_120611


 

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Tim Downs is, apparently, an idiot.

People who are emotionally distressed or under the influence will attack officers in their homes, regardless of the legality.

And their emotional state or state of intoxication does not change the legality of that entry after the fact.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

The problem is establishing whether or not a law enforcement officer entered your home lawfully on the fly. If they have probable cause it is lawful right? So if your neighbor calls and reports a domestic disturbance at your house that is probable cause correct? Really this law says if a cop breaks into your house you can shoot him?

_________________

GOOMH!

_________________
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me." - Alice R. Longworth

"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash Williams

Interesting. It's still a stupid thing to shoot at cops. They generally know how to shoot, and there's typically several of them, and more on the way if necessary.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment

One of the major problems faced by the police when seeking to enter a civilian's home is the guarantee of protection from precisely that activity. Unfortunately for those seeking to decry the Indiana statute, there is no corollary which guarantees law enforcement agents protection from reprisal during forced entry into a civilian home. This is by design. The entire document is intended to impose limits on what government agencies can and can not do.

Catching the suspected perpetrator by surprise before he can react and destroy evidence, escape, or pose a threat to police officers is a secondary legal concern to protecting the sanctity of civilians in their own abodes. Citizens not having their homes invaded by police officers is a higher priority than catching criminals, as well as ensuring the safety of police officers. That is simply one of the rules of the society we live in, and given that study of and testing over the United States Constitution is a mandatory element of any sort of accredited adolescent education, as well as a requirement to obtaining U.S. citizenship, all police officers are aware of this before any training takes place whatsoever, let alone being deputized and receiving a badge.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Just wrong long thing. Work is over so I will just say.

This is about leving no doubt that qualified immunity does not exist for officers engaging in illegal activity that is extremely likely to put lawful citizens at extreme risk for grave bodily injury to themselves or loved ones.

_________________
"...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

Yes, as a matter of fact there is a corollary that protects peace officers - and everyone else. It's called due process. The officer's actions are to be judged by an impartial court, not just a citizen who happens to think that the officers who are doing something he doesn't want them to do are entering "unlawfully" just because he feels so.

Every police officer in Indiana should quit. Sadly, most won't since it probably wouldn't be economically feasible.

The Constitution is not there in order to make armed resistance to the government easier. It's there to make it unnecessary.

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

uh No, the vast majority of police officers have very little experience, or practice with their weapons. Most of them only know how to use them well enough to pass qualifications. The average CCW holder spends considerably more time at the range practicing, and learning, then almost any police officer.
Not to call you out DE, But Honest Questions for you. Since January first this year how much range time have you spent? How many rounds fired? how many different weapons? and no I'm not going compare your stats to mine, or the muppet's.

This law does have it's place, if nothing else it will ensure due diligence on the part of the officers, accurate fact checking, accurate address information (no knock raids on the wrong address).
I haven't read the text of the law.
Ideally the law should include that the officers are criminally, and civilly liable for their actions. Too many times they screw up and walk away, people are dead, property destroyed, and pets killed with out cause or justification other than we made a mistake.
With out a warrant the officer better be able to articulate a very good reason at time of entry, not some anon tip.

Sorry DE dis agree with you on the constitution. The Second Amendment exists Specifically to ensure the that We The People have recourse to irresponsible or tyrannical government.

_________________
History of the Condom
In 1272, the Muslim Arabs invented the condom, using a goat's lower intestine.
In 1873, the British somewhat refined the idea, by taking the intestine out of the goat first.

The average CCW holder spends more time at the range than the average police officer, not almost any police officer. CCW holders include plenty of people that are not shooting enthusiasts and who do not shoot with any regularity.



I'm not going to answer that except to say that it's not as much as I'd like, what with having 4 kids, and 2 of them being babies. I still shoot "expert" every time though - which is 4 times more often than as a local police officer. As for the number of weapons, we qualify with 3. I have 3 more I regularly shoot at the range. The number of weapons is limited by my personal budget for guns and ammo which is close to zero right now. I wouldn't be able to afford to shoot on my own at all right now if I hadn't inherited an appalling amount of ammo when my dad died.



This law has no place. Even if it does ensure those things, they're already required. All this law will do is give nutjobs the idea that they personally can start shooting because their personal idea of what's legal or constitutional has been violated. There might be some benefit there, though. A lot of them will no doubt get killed.



Officers can be criminally and civilly liable for their actions already. What we see too many times is not officers screwing up, but people rushing to judgement based on incomplete facts and biased accounts.



That's already the case. An officer cannot simply enter (barring consent) based on an anonymous tip and expect it to hold up in court as it is.



False. In fact, that's perfectly silly. If the government were tyrannical, it would simply ignore the Second Amendment. The idea that you can use force of arms to deal with "irresponsible" government is laughable. There's no point in even having a coherent nation then. You may as well just say "anyone can start shooting as soon as they lose an election".

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

Following the law all to often has been ignored by those in authority, Due diligence has not been done Cato has stats on this.
Some officer are abusive as well.

obviously, you and I have different perspectives on a number of things. We can debate those till were both blue and the face, cussing and swearing at each other.
Please don't take that as disrespect for you or the job you do.

I have little to no doubt that we could sit and discuss this and numerous other topics that are politically charged over a pizza and a couple of pitchers of beer with out problems, we would agree on some and disagree on others.

_________________
History of the Condom
In 1272, the Muslim Arabs invented the condom, using a goat's lower intestine.
In 1873, the British somewhat refined the idea, by taking the intestine out of the goat first.

Following the law is ignored by all kinds of people, and simply claiming that someone has undefined stats on something doesn't mean a thing.



So? So what?



Too late.



In that case, maybe you'd be more comfortable sending me a PM.

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

Quick questions, DO you believe that officers should be held to a higher level of integrity, Than the average citizen, due to their position of trust, and authority?

_________________
History of the Condom
In 1272, the Muslim Arabs invented the condom, using a goat's lower intestine.
In 1873, the British somewhat refined the idea, by taking the intestine out of the goat first.

They should be, but it seems that some folks take that to a level of "Here is more proof all cops are jack-booted thugs. Thus I should be able to ignore them all. " By all means, throw out the bums, but respect the honest hard working servants of justice.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

I hate to poke my head in here, but this smells funny..



.. aren't most cops (if not all) CCW holders?

The real problem here is that the unlawful entry might not be the fault of the police officer being shot at, and he has no way to determine whether the entry was lawful, and more importantly he has no right to refuse to execute a warrant he has been given. The higher ups can completely **** up the process resulting in officers getting killed, with basically no repercussions other than (maybe) getting fired.

But seriously, how can the homeowner possibly know the entry is unlawful? I can't even think of a situation where they could know for sure. All this law is going to do is randomly get people who shot at the cops (and would have shot at them regardless of this law) off the hook when they get their lawyers to examine the papers afterwards and find a mistake.

Short answer: No.

Just like some office workers use excel and word they know just enough to get their job done and have no idea how to do anything (or even how to use help or google to learn) outside the functions they do everyday many cops use their firearm to qualify and look at their firearm as just another part of their job.

_________________
"...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

Cops don't just have due process DE they posess qualified immunity from prosecution and civil law suits if they "believe they are acting within the law".

So those who have to enforce the law have a lower standard of knowledge of the law than do other citizens for whom ignorance of the law is no excuse to violate it.

_________________
"...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

To chime in on this, my sister has a CCW as does my father. My sister has fired a gun exactly one time (during the exam) and my father goes to the range one every 2-3 years unless I drag him along with me.

_________________

So long as the cop has a warrant for the correct location, my assumption is that the entry is considered lawful.

If the warrant is found to be issued unlawfully, then that's not the cop's problem, and would simply invalidate any evidence collected.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Um, yes.

First thing, nothing you've said here refutes my statement that police officers "generally know how to shoot". The skills of whom they are shooting at are irrelevant. They have, pretty much, all received some level of training.

Second, comparing the average officer to the average CCW holder is a bogus comparison. I would guess that the average skills of police officers involved in home invasions is higher than the average overall officer, but I don't know this. Also, we're talking about the average jackass willing to shoot at cops, not the average CCW holder. In terms of home invasions, this includes people with firearms that do not have CCW licenses (like me, and I suspect like the vast majority of gun owners). Of all the non-CCW gun owners I know, very, very few spend any time at a formal range at all. They can all shoot, and handle their weapons, but the weapons are definitely viewed differently by them than by those with CCW licenses.

At any rate, yes - cops generally know how to shoot.

Cops generally know how to shoot to qualify yearly. I think we can all agree that most shoot proficiently enough to not lose their job.

_________________
"...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

Elmo has it right, that is about all the average police officer uses his fire arm for.
My thoughtson private citizens that carry is based on my experience, friends, family, and associates. The I put the average from what I see as practice about once every 3 months.
I'm not factoring in my immediate family into the average that would seriously skew things.
Generally unless an officer pays for his own ammo( see DE Statement above). The departments provide very little support for practice.

_________________
History of the Condom
In 1272, the Muslim Arabs invented the condom, using a goat's lower intestine.
In 1873, the British somewhat refined the idea, by taking the intestine out of the goat first.

Of course it's the cop's problem. The homeowner gets to shoot at him without consequence. How does it even work if the cops shoot back in such a situation and kill the homeowner? Is he going down for murder just for defending himself serving a warrant he didn't know wasn't legit?

I just don't understand the law at all. It's not possible for the homeowner to know, in 99.99% of cases, that the search is unlawful. It just randomly gets criminals off the hook.

The law is designed so that police do more due dilligence and less no knock swat style raids.

Since the police weren't respecting citizens rights - they made it easier for citizens to enforce the respect of legal force.

_________________
"...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