Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > SPECIALTY FORUMS > Calguns LEOs
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Calguns LEOs LEOs; chat, kibitz and relax. Non-LEOs; have a questions for a cop? Ask it here, in a CIVIL manner.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 03-21-2012, 8:01 AM
bob7122's Avatar
bob7122 bob7122 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: OC, SoCal
Posts: 5,338
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biochembruin View Post
A suspect's conviction of a crime does not negate their right to sue in Federal Court. Also, explaining why someone is detained during an armed confrontation is unreasonable for a variety of reasons.

Let's change my previous example. The individual stopped on the bike is indeed the robber. When the officer says stop, and before any explanation, the suspect runs, turns the corner, ditches his weapon and fruits of the crime, and is caught after an hour long search. The victim can't positively identify the suspect. He's a violent gang member with a lengthy history. He will not be convicted of any crime, since he fled before any explanation, and in his mind, he reasonably believes the officer was using unlawful force to detain.

Not everyone out there is a decent person and will listen to logic. If you have ever tried to detain someone who turns the contact into a shouting match before you can explain anything or get them safely into custody, you would understand. Some people innocent of one crime are guilty of another, and will resist.

This law will not solve any perceived systemic police abuse (of which about 5 examples have been provided out of the thousands of Indiana officers). Rather the proper application of existing laws is the answer (sound familiar?).
i see your point. DAMN! so how can we fix this thing? giving leos a blanket immunity or the right to do as they please is not ok in my book. no one should be above the law.
you guys have convinced me, but a great problem remains.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2761377 View Post
man's greatest accomplishments have been achieved in the face of futility.
it's a piss poor excuse to quit.
PSN name= entwie_dumayla
"I came into this world with someone else's blood on me and I don't mind leaving the same way..."
looking to buy in great condition yugo sks
  #42  
Old 03-21-2012, 8:13 AM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,784
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biochembruin View Post
A suspect's conviction of a crime does not negate their right to sue in Federal Court. Also, explaining why someone is detained during an armed confrontation is unreasonable for a variety of reasons.

Let's change my previous example. The individual stopped on the bike is indeed the robber. When the officer says stop, and before any explanation, the suspect runs, turns the corner, ditches his weapon and fruits of the crime, and is caught after an hour long search. The victim can't positively identify the suspect. He's a violent gang member with a lengthy history. He will not be convicted of any crime, since he fled before any explanation, and in his mind, he reasonably believes the officer was using unlawful force to detain.

Not everyone out there is a decent person and will listen to logic. If you have ever tried to detain someone who turns the contact into a shouting match before you can explain anything or get them safely into custody, you would understand. Some people innocent of one crime are guilty of another, and will resist.

This law will not solve any perceived systemic police abuse (of which about 5 examples have been provided out of the thousands of Indiana officers). Rather the proper application of existing laws is the answer (sound familiar?).
That is not the point. The point is that the citizens had no recourse to do anything except get beaten, much like the New York "duty to retreat" law. Even an ILLEGAL attack by an officer can (and did) result in prosecution of the citizens because there was NOTHING that allowed the citizen to defend themselves against aggression by LEO's under any circumstances. Even illegal ones resulted in prosecutions. Once again, you come from a "perfect world" point of view. The intent of the law, however imperfect you may see it, and since no laws are perfect, there are going to be issues and loopholes as usual, is that an illegal action by a law enforcement officer gives the innocent citizen a right to defense without giving a prosecutor open license to chalk up a freebie conviction, because the law in Indiana up to that time was written in a way that did not protect the citizen from such prosecution.

You still see this as a way for criminals to get a free out. They won't. Trust me. Indiana will still find ways to protect the LEO community like they have done in the past, and some doofus who claims the act the police were engaging in was illegal (which is a stipulation in the defense statute) will be filtered out pretty quickly. This allows the innocent citizen the right to not get his teeth kicked in by a rogue officer, and not get a felony on his record for his troubles.
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: I cant wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Dude went full CNN...
Peace, love, and heavy weapons. Sometimes you have to be insistent." - David Lee Roth
  #43  
Old 03-21-2012, 9:42 AM
biochembruin biochembruin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 823
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
That is not the point. The point is that the citizens had no recourse to do anything except get beaten, much like the New York "duty to retreat" law. Even an ILLEGAL attack by an officer can (and did) result in prosecution of the citizens because there was NOTHING that allowed the citizen to defend themselves against aggression by LEO's under any circumstances. Even illegal ones resulted in prosecutions. Once again, you come from a "perfect world" point of view. The intent of the law, however imperfect you may see it, and since no laws are perfect, there are going to be issues and loopholes as usual, is that an illegal action by a law enforcement officer gives the innocent citizen a right to defense without giving a prosecutor open license to chalk up a freebie conviction, because the law in Indiana up to that time was written in a way that did not protect the citizen from such prosecution.

You still see this as a way for criminals to get a free out. They won't. Trust me. Indiana will still find ways to protect the LEO community like they have done in the past, and some doofus who claims the act the police were engaging in was illegal (which is a stipulation in the defense statute) will be filtered out pretty quickly. This allows the innocent citizen the right to not get his teeth kicked in by a rogue officer, and not get a felony on his record for his troubles.
Your logic is faulty. First, the bill doesn't require that police action be illegal. Only that the resister thinks that it's illegal. It is perfectly reasonable that a police action that is entirely legal could be met with legal resistance if the bill becomes law. Second, this bill will not stop anyone from "getting their teeth kicked in." If a resister escalates the violence of an encounter, so will the officer. This bill does nothing to limit police use of force. In fact, one could argue police would be quicker to escalate the force used if they feel people will be more likely to resist because of this bill.

Again, what is needed is the proper application of the existing laws. This bill will not have the intended consequences.
__________________
The thing to do, my friends, is to admit to your fate with Christian resignation and live bravely until your appointed time." - Lee Marvin, "The Spikes Gang"

Last edited by biochembruin; 03-21-2012 at 9:48 AM..
  #44  
Old 03-21-2012, 9:45 AM
biochembruin biochembruin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 823
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob7122 View Post
i see your point. DAMN! so how can we fix this thing? giving leos a blanket immunity or the right to do as they please is not ok in my book. no one should be above the law.
you guys have convinced me, but a great problem remains.
The solution is on the books. Perhaps if there is a problem in Indiana, some federal oversight is warranted, as happened in Los Angeles. Please remember, there is no law which gives officers blanket immunity. Only certain diplomats enjoy such privileges.
__________________
The thing to do, my friends, is to admit to your fate with Christian resignation and live bravely until your appointed time." - Lee Marvin, "The Spikes Gang"
  #45  
Old 03-21-2012, 10:13 AM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,784
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biochembruin View Post
Your logic is faulty. First, the bill doesn't require that police action be illegal. Only that the resister thinks that it's illegal. It is perfectly reasonable that a police action that is entirely legal could be met with legal resistance if the bill becomes law. Second, this bill will not stop anyone from "getting their teeth kicked in." If a resister escalates the violence of an encounter, so will the officer. This bill does nothing to limit police use of force. In fact, one could argue police would be quicker to escalate the force used if they feel people will be more likely to resist because of this bill.

Again, what is needed is the proper application of the existing laws. This bill will not have the intended consequences.
Are you voluntarily missing the point? It is NOT about the restraining the officer, it is about preventing the citizen from prosecution! Indiana already HAD federal oversight due to issues with police, but since only an individual police department is an issue at any point in time, the local PD could be under a federal watch, but the PD in the next town is not. Neither would the local sherrifs dept. The Fed didn't have the ENTIRE state police system in EVERY town under investigation, only the ones at any instant in time that they could prove issues with, but once again THAT IS NOT THE POINT! The citizen was still liable for prosecution under the existing law EVEN WHEN THE OFFICER WAS DOING SOMETHING ILLEGAL. The officer can go to a federal penitentiary for committing a criminal act, but under Indiana law, the person resisting was STILL guilty of a criminal act. Any prosecutor willing to pad his resume (and there were plenty) had free reign to arrest and try a person for violating Indiana law. THAT WAS THE POINT!

I am not in any way saying a person being lawfully arrested should have any right to fight back. I don't think enough criminals are arrested, but when the innocent are made guilty by the acts of others with no legal means of defense, that is a bad system. In many Indiana cases, judges did not allow the fact that the officer was either prosecuted or otherwise punished to be used as a mitigating circumstance for defense. All the jury knew was that person 'A' was charged with striking officer 'B', and here is evidence 'C'. Since the law did not allow for the person to defend themselves, it was, by definition, illegal. I'm sure plenty of criminals will attempt to use this law to their advantage. You act as though this would be the ONE time they did that. In this case, the person would have to prove to a jury that they believed the arrest or action was illegal. Up to this point, they didn't even have that.
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: I cant wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Dude went full CNN...
Peace, love, and heavy weapons. Sometimes you have to be insistent." - David Lee Roth
  #46  
Old 03-21-2012, 10:14 AM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,956
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biochembruin View Post
Your logic is faulty. First, the bill doesn't require that police action be illegal. Only that the resister thinks that it's illegal. It is perfectly reasonable that a police action that is entirely legal could be met with legal resistance if the bill becomes law. Second, this bill will not stop anyone from "getting their teeth kicked in." If a resister escalates the violence of an encounter, so will the officer. This bill does nothing to limit police use of force. In fact, one could argue police would be quicker to escalate the force used if they feel people will be more likely to resist because of this bill.

Again, what is needed is the proper application of the existing laws. This bill will not have the intended consequences.
Again - it's important to note that the resistor would have to reasonably believe that the police action was illegal - not that he simply thinks the action is illegal. It's unclear what the exact test would be (I'm not familiar with peculiarities in Indiana law) but I'd guess that it would parallel the "reasonable belief" test that an LEO would have to satisfy for a warrantless search, whether the individual acted upon a personal knowledge of facts and circumstances which are reasonably trustworthy. That would justify a person of average caution to believe that a crime has been or is being committed.

As said above, the proposed law simply exonerates the "victim" if he uses force to resist what he thinks is an unlawful action - but in the meantime it does nothing to protect him from inevitable injury or death from the escalation of force. It's not a prophylactic measure at all.

However, shifting the monetary burden from the City/County/State/Fed to the individual LEO for engaging in known unlawful conduct would be preventative. No longer insulated by the deep pockets of his/her employer, folks are more apt to be sensitive about willfully trampling the civil rights of citizens.
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky.

90% of winning is simply showing up.

"Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green


NRA Benefactor Member
  #47  
Old 03-21-2012, 10:22 AM
biochembruin biochembruin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 823
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdberger View Post
Again - it's important to note that the resistor would have to reasonably believe that the police action was illegal - not that he simply thinks the action is illegal. It's unclear what the exact test would be (I'm not familiar with peculiarities in Indiana law) but I'd guess that it would parallel the "reasonable belief" test that an LEO would have to satisfy for a warrantless search, whether the individual acted upon a personal knowledge of facts and circumstances which are reasonably trustworthy. That would justify a person of average caution to believe that a crime has been or is being committed.

As said above, the proposed law simply exonerates the "victim" if he uses force to resist what he thinks is an unlawful action - but in the meantime it does nothing to protect him from inevitable injury or death from the escalation of force. It's not a prophylactic measure at all.

However, shifting the monetary burden from the City/County/State/Fed to the individual LEO for engaging in known unlawful conduct would be preventative. No longer insulated by the deep pockets of his/her employer, folks are more apt to be sensitive about willfully trampling the civil rights of citizens.
In my first example, would it not be reasonable for the male riding a bike to think the officer is using unlawful force, since the male knows he hasn't broken any laws? Would you think it's reasonable for the male to hold that belief? If so, the male is free to resist, despite the fact that the officer has reasonable suspicion to detain. And if the male resists before the officer can explain the situation (for example, the male CCW draws and fires at the officer), he would be within his legal right to do so according to the bill.

As to your second point regarding officers personal liability, the law already exists. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983 If an officer is found to be acting outside of the law or department policy, the officer is personally liable for civil damages. It happens all the time.
__________________
The thing to do, my friends, is to admit to your fate with Christian resignation and live bravely until your appointed time." - Lee Marvin, "The Spikes Gang"
  #48  
Old 03-21-2012, 10:31 AM
SFgiants105's Avatar
SFgiants105 SFgiants105 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,205
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gryff View Post
Agreed. Once I see a badge and ID without having a weapon pointed at me after jarring me awake in the middle of the night, I'm all about complying with law enforcement.

But since I'm not a dirtbag meth cooker, anyone kicking my door in at 3am is assumed to be an unlawful intruder, and the fight is on until I figure out who they are. It is law enforcement's obligation to unequivocally establish their identity to me if they enter my home by force. It is not my responsibility to assume that they are LEOs.
Couldn't have said it any better. LEOs are supposed to enforce, and by the transitive property, follow, the law. If a police officer is breaking the law, they should be held as accountable as any non-LEO.

It seems, however, that people need to be more educated on police procedures. It is helpful to know how LEOs operate in order to know how to interact with them and stay within the law.
__________________
Universal truth is not measured in mass appeal

-Immortal Technique


  #49  
Old 03-21-2012, 10:51 AM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,956
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Please note - I agree with you that the proposed law in the OP is a poor idea...

Quote:
Originally Posted by biochembruin View Post
In my first example, would it not be reasonable for the male riding a bike to think the officer is using unlawful force, since the male knows he hasn't broken any laws? Would you think it's reasonable for the male to hold that belief?
Not necessarily. It's an question of fact. I'd propose that a "reasonable" man wouldn't automatically draw on a uniformed LEO who had just ordered him to "freeze".

Quote:
Originally Posted by biochembruin View Post
If so, the male is free to resist, despite the fact that the officer has reasonable suspicion to detain. And if the male resists before the officer can explain the situation (for example, the male CCW draws and fires at the officer), he would be within his legal right to do so according to the bill.
If we alter the fact pattern to make the LEO plainclothes'd - maybe. Assuming he didn't already identify himself. Again, we're making great assumptions here. We're assuming that there isn't a wave of kidnappings/robberies in which the bad guys initially identify themselves as LEOs (drawing a parallel with some home invasions) in which a reasonable person might suspect that the person accosting him isn't really an LEO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by biochembruin View Post
As to your second point regarding officers personal liability, the law already exists. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983 If an officer is found to be acting outside of the law or department policy, the officer is personally liable for civil damages. It happens all the time.
It's still a significant barrier to get a judgment against an individual in an 1983 action. For instance, you can use CGF's suit against the Ventura County Sheriff for LTC good cause statements as an example. There was clear precedent on the issue (CBS v Block) and CGF won, handily (including fees). But suing the Sheriff in his individual capacity wouldn't have been worth it because the County would have indemnified him - essentially, the taxpayers would have been on the hook for the Sheriff's intransigence. Whatever money CGF could then have recovered from the Sheriff would have been spread out over the millions of taxpayers living in Ventura County. Even if CGF were able to recover $10MM (just for the sake of argument) it would have worked out to less than $10 per taxpayer.

However, if the Sheriff wasn't indemnified by the County, the prospect of losing his house simply for being stubborn might have influenced his decision.

I hope that I'm making sense, here....
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky.

90% of winning is simply showing up.

"Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green


NRA Benefactor Member
  #50  
Old 03-21-2012, 11:03 AM
biochembruin biochembruin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 823
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdberger View Post
Please note - I agree with you that the proposed law in the OP is a poor idea...

....It's still a significant barrier to get a judgment against an individual in an 1983 action. For instance, you can use CGF's suit against the Ventura County Sheriff for LTC good cause statements as an example. There was clear precedent on the issue (CBS v Block) and CGF won, handily (including fees). But suing the Sheriff in his individual capacity wouldn't have been worth it because the County would have indemnified him - essentially, the taxpayers would have been on the hook for the Sheriff's intransigence. Whatever money CGF could then have recovered from the Sheriff would have been spread out over the millions of taxpayers living in Ventura County. Even if CGF were able to recover $10MM (just for the sake of argument) it would have worked out to less than $10 per taxpayer.

However, if the Sheriff wasn't indemnified by the County, the prospect of losing his house simply for being stubborn might have influenced his decision.

I hope that I'm making sense, here....
None of those issues will be rectified by passing this poorly written law.
__________________
The thing to do, my friends, is to admit to your fate with Christian resignation and live bravely until your appointed time." - Lee Marvin, "The Spikes Gang"
  #51  
Old 03-21-2012, 11:43 AM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,956
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biochembruin View Post
None of those issues will be rectified by passing this poorly written law.
I agree completely.
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky.

90% of winning is simply showing up.

"Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green


NRA Benefactor Member
  #52  
Old 03-22-2012, 8:40 AM
lrdchivalry's Avatar
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 1,031
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I think that the title of the thread shows part of the problem we have in this country in regards to leo's and the public. A bill crafted, regardless if poorly written, to protect citizens from unlawful conduct by the police is automatically branded anti-police.

IMO all the hype I read about more officers are going to be injured or killed as a result of this bill is the same hyperbole we heard when Florida was in the process of going shall issue for CCW and the results didn't reflect that. Are there other avenues to pursue to hold officers accountable? Sure, making them personally liable for their actions, as someone else pointed out is a good way, however, that does not help someone such as Cara Knott when she was killed by Craig Peyer while he was on duty. Peyer was convicted and sentanced but Cara is still dead, the proposed law would not only have allowed her to protect herself from the unlawful action by Peyer but would also save her from prosecution for assault of a police officer. Even the Cato Institute's report "Overkill Rise of the Paramilitary Police Raids in America" shows examples of police serving no-knock warrants on the wrong house and then charging the homeowner's for capitol murder of police officers for defending themselves against at the time unknown assailants.

I have been an leo for 14yrs now and I am starting to see more and more officers thinking they can do whatever they want because they are leo's with officer safety or who is going to bust me I am a cop mentality.

I think what it all comes down to IMO is that the citizens of Indiana will have one more avenue to keep unlawful actions by police in check and that does not sit well with the leo community. We are servants of the public and are accountable to the public, not the other way around.
__________________
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"
  #53  
Old 03-22-2012, 10:04 AM
biochembruin biochembruin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 823
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrdchivalry View Post
I think that the title of the thread shows part of the problem we have in this country in regards to leo's and the public. A bill crafted, regardless if poorly written, to protect citizens from unlawful conduct by the police is automatically branded anti-police.

IMO all the hype I read about more officers are going to be injured or killed as a result of this bill is the same hyperbole we heard when Florida was in the process of going shall issue for CCW and the results didn't reflect that. Are there other avenues to pursue to hold officers accountable? Sure, making them personally liable for their actions, as someone else pointed out is a good way, however, that does not help someone such as Cara Knott when she was killed by Craig Peyer while he was on duty. Peyer was convicted and sentanced but Cara is still dead, the proposed law would not only have allowed her to protect herself from the unlawful action by Peyer but would also save her from prosecution for assault of a police officer. Even the Cato Institute's report "Overkill Rise of the Paramilitary Police Raids in America" shows examples of police serving no-knock warrants on the wrong house and then charging the homeowner's for capitol murder of police officers for defending themselves against at the time unknown assailants.

I have been an leo for 14yrs now and I am starting to see more and more officers thinking they can do whatever they want because they are leo's with officer safety or who is going to bust me I am a cop mentality.

I think what it all comes down to IMO is that the citizens of Indiana will have one more avenue to keep unlawful actions by police in check and that does not sit well with the leo community. We are servants of the public and are accountable to the public, not the other way around.
Again keep in mind that the bill provides an avenue for someone to legally resist a lawful police action.

What sort of law enforcement do you do? It seems odd that your comment seems to suggest you are unaware that officers are already personally liable for any illegal action.
__________________
The thing to do, my friends, is to admit to your fate with Christian resignation and live bravely until your appointed time." - Lee Marvin, "The Spikes Gang"
  #54  
Old 03-22-2012, 10:16 AM
lrdchivalry's Avatar
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 1,031
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biochembruin View Post
Again keep in mind that the bill provides an avenue for someone to legally resist a lawful police action.
Hyperbole, the measure specifies that people are protected by the state's self-defense law if they reasonably believe force is necessary to protect themselves from unlawful actions by an officer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by biochembruin View Post
What sort of law enforcement do you do? It seems odd that your comment seems to suggest you are unaware that officers are already personally liable for any illegal action.
14 yrs in federal law enforcement working the border, currently working a narco/concealed human detector dog. How many have you worked in law enforcement?
__________________
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"
  #55  
Old 03-22-2012, 4:23 PM
CalCop CalCop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacto Area
Posts: 573
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by retired View Post
Stating your opinion in a calm and deliberate manner is fine. Calling people a troll, saying it's open season on cops or "plenty of 'police are more important than you are' posters." are not.
Troll does not seem like a bad word. It is a nice way of informing fellow bloggers that an individual may be "trolling" to see if anyone will bite on the troller's comments and start an inappropriate conversation. We should be able to point out trollers with the simple, common, appropriate word, "Troll." Just my humble opinion.
__________________
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen."
-- Sir Robert Peel
  #56  
Old 03-22-2012, 5:10 PM
biochembruin biochembruin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 823
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrdchivalry View Post
Hyperbole, the measure specifies that people are protected by the state's self-defense law if they reasonably believe force is necessary to protect themselves from unlawful actions by an officer.



14 yrs in federal law enforcement working the border, currently working a narco/concealed human detector dog. How many have you worked in law enforcement?
Please read the bill critically. As you yourself stated, the bill allows someone to resist an act they reasonably believe to be unlawful. The act does not actually have to be unlawful, just appear as such, which would cause a reasonable person to believe it is.

I have testified numerous times as a court expert on use of force. I believe that qualifies me to understand how this law can be applied.
__________________
The thing to do, my friends, is to admit to your fate with Christian resignation and live bravely until your appointed time." - Lee Marvin, "The Spikes Gang"
  #57  
Old 03-22-2012, 7:47 PM
lrdchivalry's Avatar
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 1,031
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biochembruin View Post
Please read the bill critically. As you yourself stated, the bill allows someone to resist an act they reasonably believe to be unlawful. The act does not actually have to be unlawful, just appear as such, which would cause a reasonable person to believe it is.

I have testified numerous times as a court expert on use of force. I believe that qualifies me to understand how this law can be applied.
There is always the potential for abuse on both sides of the coin, remember Newton County Sheriff Don Hartman talking about doing random house to house searches after the Indiana Supreme Courts ruling? This new bill was not created on a whim and was a response to repeated complaints of police abuse and a unconstitutional ruling by the ISC, the Sheriff's statement is a good example. We are servants of the public and when the police fear the people, we have liberty, when the people fear the government (i.e. the police) there is tyranny, especially if the police have a monopoly on force.

Apparently the Governor of Indiana also believes there is an issue since he signed it into law on the 20th of March 2012 (according to the Indiana General Assembly website.

I still believe it's the same hyperbole of cops getting gunned down in the streets and blood running in the gutter when Florida went shall issue. Only time will tell.
__________________
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"
  #58  
Old 03-22-2012, 9:34 PM
biochembruin biochembruin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 823
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrdchivalry View Post
There is always the potential for abuse on both sides of the coin, remember Newton County Sheriff Don Hartman talking about doing random house to house searches after the Indiana Supreme Courts ruling? This new bill was not created on a whim and was a response to repeated complaints of police abuse and a unconstitutional ruling by the ISC, the Sheriff's statement is a good example. We are servants of the public and when the police fear the people, we have liberty, when the people fear the government (i.e. the police) there is tyranny, especially if the police have a monopoly on force.

Apparently the Governor of Indiana also believes there is an issue since he signed it into law on the 20th of March 2012 (according to the Indiana General Assembly website.

I still believe it's the same hyperbole of cops getting gunned down in the streets and blood running in the gutter when Florida went shall issue. Only time will tell.
Politics of the governor asside, this bill will not solve any of those problems. I would have substantially less concern with the law if it allowed people to resist unlawful police actions rather than actions which reasonably appear unlawful. There is a vast difference which seems to be lost on some.
__________________
The thing to do, my friends, is to admit to your fate with Christian resignation and live bravely until your appointed time." - Lee Marvin, "The Spikes Gang"
  #59  
Old 03-22-2012, 9:55 PM
thomashoward's Avatar
thomashoward thomashoward is offline
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 2,001
iTrader: 72 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gryff View Post
Agreed. Once I see a badge and ID without having a weapon pointed at me after jarring me awake in the middle of the night, I'm all about complying with law enforcement.

But since I'm not a dirtbag meth cooker, anyone kicking my door in at 3am is assumed to be an unlawful intruder, and the fight is on until I figure out who they are. It is law enforcement's obligation to unequivocally establish their identity to me if they enter my home by force. It is not my responsibility to assume that they are LEOs.
+1
that sound you hear at 3A.M.is me racking my 12 gauge
If you are a LEO You better sing out.
If you have the wrong house too bad for you you. Come through that door you will be leaving a hell of a lot quicker. Anyone attempting to gain entry into my house at that time is assumed to be a BG
  #60  
Old 03-23-2012, 12:14 AM
Chief2Guns's Avatar
Chief2Guns Chief2Guns is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 137
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I agree with this bill. A police officer better ID themselves and have a warrant before busting my door down. I see nothing wrong with this bill, pass.
__________________
Hau!
  #61  
Old 03-23-2012, 6:12 AM
Tack Tack is offline
Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: north San Diego county
Posts: 232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default bad arguement

Quote:
Originally Posted by biochembruin;8256538

Officer Mike sees you, observes that you match the description of the robber, and thus has reasonable suspicion you may be involved in a crime. He knows the crime was violent, and wants to detain you. He calls for back-up, pulls up behind you, activates his overhead lights, and draws his gun. He orders you to stop.

You turn to see an officer pointing a gun at you, ordering you to stop. You know you haven't committed a crime and thus [B
you reasonably believe the officer is using unlawful force against you.[/B]
You hijacked the thread to suit your own argument. The original post was about a no-knock entry during the night. I hope you can do better. So far you are making me like the Indiana bill more and more.
__________________
Calguns and NRA life member.
Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have.

Last edited by Tack; 03-23-2012 at 6:15 AM..
  #62  
Old 03-23-2012, 6:36 AM
Cowboy T's Avatar
Cowboy T Cowboy T is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: PAULestine, USA
Posts: 3,675
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Having read this entire thread, I now have a question for Biochembruin.

Given the examples of no-knock entries and other similar illegal police actions described in this thread, plus the description of what is actually happening with the immunity statutes in Indiana, what would be your specific solution to stop them, if not this bill?
__________________
"San Francisco Liberal With A Gun"
F***ing with people's heads, one gun show at a time. Hallelujah!
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com (reloading info w/ videos)
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com (podcast)
http://www.youtube.com/sfliberal (YouTube channel)
----------------------------------------------------
To be a true Liberal, you must be 100% pro-Second Amendment. Anything less is inconsistent with liberalism.
  #63  
Old 03-23-2012, 7:34 AM
lrdchivalry's Avatar
lrdchivalry lrdchivalry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego Area
Posts: 1,031
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biochembruin View Post
Politics of the governor asside, this bill will not solve any of those problems. I would have substantially less concern with the law if it allowed people to resist unlawful police actions rather than actions which reasonably appear unlawful. There is a vast difference which seems to be lost on some.
I guess only time will tell. I still think leo's are blowing this way out of proportion just as they did in Florida.
__________________
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"
  #64  
Old 03-23-2012, 7:55 AM
Manolito's Avatar
Manolito Manolito is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Milford California Pop. 72
Posts: 2,326
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I need help understanding the need for 3:00AM knock one time and break the door in all in the same breath. If a hostage situation OK but the rest can be handled differently.

Watching the bad guy and arresting him at a stop light is a lot better than hitting the wrong house. I live on a ranch and you would not believe the wrong address for fire and police up here.

I am more scared of the police at night than I am of the bad guy. I think this whole SWAT team thing is over used because they need to justify the group. I use WACO Texas as an example. These people could have been arrested as they left the compound. Using tanks on American citizens is out of line period. I tried to find a single use of automatic weapons on Police and found LA and that was it. I probably missed some but I think how we respond as police is wrong.

Police if you do not want the job get another one you don't rate in the top ten dangerous jobs in the US hell mine as a rancher farmer rates a lot higher than policeman.

Those of you that say you don't break the law you should look again there are laws you break they are just not enforced yet.

Just my thoughts and I think we need police just change the way they do business.

Last edited by Manolito; 03-23-2012 at 7:58 AM..
  #65  
Old 03-23-2012, 7:59 AM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,784
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biochembruin View Post
Politics of the governor asside, this bill will not solve any of those problems. I would have substantially less concern with the law if it allowed people to resist unlawful police actions rather than actions which reasonably appear unlawful. There is a vast difference which seems to be lost on some.
So, by your reasoning, one must have full knowledge that the act in question IS illegal before deciding to defend oneself. Meaning the victim must have a complete encyclopedic knowledge of the criminal code, and its application and onterpretation, then make the decision, while someone is wrestling you to the ground, kicking in your door, or striking you.........
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: I cant wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Dude went full CNN...
Peace, love, and heavy weapons. Sometimes you have to be insistent." - David Lee Roth
  #66  
Old 03-23-2012, 8:47 AM
biochembruin biochembruin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 823
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tack View Post
You hijacked the thread to suit your own argument. The original post was about a no-knock entry during the night. I hope you can do better. So far you are making me like the Indiana bill more and more.
Read the law, the original post, and the news article and show me where there is anything saying "no knock warrant." The law is much broader than merely applying to warrant service.
__________________
The thing to do, my friends, is to admit to your fate with Christian resignation and live bravely until your appointed time." - Lee Marvin, "The Spikes Gang"
  #67  
Old 03-23-2012, 8:56 AM
biochembruin biochembruin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 823
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy T View Post
Having read this entire thread, I now have a question for Biochembruin.

Given the examples of no-knock entries and other similar illegal police actions described in this thread, plus the description of what is actually happening with the immunity statutes in Indiana, what would be your specific solution to stop them, if not this bill?
Proper application of existing laws. Remember not every entry is illegal, even if knock and notice requirements are not necessary for a given situation.

For all this talk about "no knock warrants," I've never seen one in all my years of law enforcement. In fact, CA has no provision for prior judicial approval to dispense with knock and notice requirements. In practical terms, there is no such thing as a "no knock warrant" in CA.
__________________
The thing to do, my friends, is to admit to your fate with Christian resignation and live bravely until your appointed time." - Lee Marvin, "The Spikes Gang"
  #68  
Old 03-23-2012, 9:13 AM
biochembruin biochembruin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 823
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
So, by your reasoning, one must have full knowledge that the act in question IS illegal before deciding to defend oneself. Meaning the victim must have a complete encyclopedic knowledge of the criminal code, and its application and onterpretation, then make the decision, while someone is wrestling you to the ground, kicking in your door, or striking you.........
No that's not how the re-worded law would apply. It would merely apply as any other affirmative defense.
__________________
The thing to do, my friends, is to admit to your fate with Christian resignation and live bravely until your appointed time." - Lee Marvin, "The Spikes Gang"
  #69  
Old 03-23-2012, 9:15 AM
Kestryll's Avatar
Kestryll Kestryll is offline
Head Janitor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Occupied Reseda, PRK
Posts: 21,011
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Blog Entries: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soldier415 View Post
I am confused as to how this is Anti-Cop. So is the retired Sheriff's Deputy reading the story over my shoulder.
Frankly I'm confused by that too, hence the title change.



Quote:
Originally Posted by biochembruin View Post
the bill doesn't require that police action be illegal. Only that the resister thinks that it's illegal.
More precisely:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdberger View Post
Again - it's important to note that the resistor would have to reasonably believe that the police action was illegal - not that he simply thinks the action is illegal.
This sounds kind of like the requirement for probable cause.

So I have to ask, what is the difference between a non-LEO reasonably believing that an action is illegal and an LEO reasonably believing that an action is illegal that makes the difference between you having probable cause to detain and arrest and the non-LEO being able to defend himself?
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA Life Member / SAF Life Member
Calguns.net an incorported entity - President.
The Calguns Shooting Sports Assoc. - Vice President.
The California Rifle & Pistol Assoc. - Director.
DONATE TO NRA-ILA, CGSSA, AND CRPAF NOW!
Opinions posted in this account are my own and unless specifically stated as such are not the approved position of Calguns.net, CGSSA or CRPA.
  #70  
Old 03-23-2012, 9:16 AM
killathrilla killathrilla is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,333
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Kudos for the proposal to codify the rights of the American Citizen to defend themselves against home invasions...Should be nationwide regardless who you are defending yourself against in your own home when you are doing nothing wrong!!

Last edited by killathrilla; 03-23-2012 at 9:34 AM..
  #71  
Old 03-23-2012, 9:53 AM
biochembruin biochembruin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 823
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Frankly I'm confused by that too, hence the title change.




More precisely:

This sounds kind of like the requirement for probable cause.

So I have to ask, what is the difference between a non-LEO reasonably believing that an action is illegal and an LEO reasonably believing that an action is illegal that makes the difference between you having probable cause to detain and arrest and the non-LEO being able to defend himself?
Primarily formal legal training on the limits of what specific facts meet the limit for probable cause.

And I previously explained how reasonable belief applied in this case. When I said "thinks" I was trying to emphasise a point. No need to quote out of context.
__________________
The thing to do, my friends, is to admit to your fate with Christian resignation and live bravely until your appointed time." - Lee Marvin, "The Spikes Gang"
  #72  
Old 03-23-2012, 10:06 AM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,784
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biochembruin View Post
Primarily formal legal training on the limits of what specific facts meet the limit for probable cause.

And I previously explained how reasonable belief applied in this case. When I said "thinks" I was trying to emphasise a point. No need to quote out of context.
Under your reasoning, the LEO does not need anything more than a simple reasonable belief that there is a crime, where you would place the responsibility on a citizen to have absolute knowledge that the detainment, intrusion or assault was in fact illegal. Which, by your definition of what allows the LEO to use the judgement to come to that conclusion, would also have all citizens required to undergo formal training in law enforcement to qualify to ascretain that an act was illegal before they would have the ability to exercise the fundamental right to defend one's home, family, or person.
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: I cant wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Dude went full CNN...
Peace, love, and heavy weapons. Sometimes you have to be insistent." - David Lee Roth
  #73  
Old 03-23-2012, 10:16 AM
biochembruin biochembruin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 823
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
Under your reasoning, the LEO does not need anything more than a simple reasonable belief that there is a crime, where you would place the responsibility on a citizen to have absolute knowledge that the detainment, intrusion or assault was in fact illegal. Which, by your definition of what allows the LEO to use the judgement to come to that conclusion, would also have all citizens required to undergo formal training in law enforcement to qualify to ascretain that an act was illegal before they would have the ability to exercise the fundamental right to defend one's home, family, or person.
The answer to Kestryl's question has nothing to do with the law in question, so no. He made an assertion and posed a question based upon it.

I don't think you understand what an affirmative legal defense is.
__________________
The thing to do, my friends, is to admit to your fate with Christian resignation and live bravely until your appointed time." - Lee Marvin, "The Spikes Gang"
  #74  
Old 03-23-2012, 10:24 AM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,784
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biochembruin View Post
The answer to Kestryl's question has nothing to do with the law in question, so no. He made an assertion and posed a question based upon it.

I don't think you understand what an affirmative legal defense is.
Maybe not, but I'm not some vaguely defined "defense expert on use of force" with intimate knowledge of legal precedence and it's application based on experience, I'm a common citizen that has to live his life every day under the circumstances that the same citizen in question that this law would cover has to live them. What I do understand is you are advocating a class-based system. An upper class group which is able to make decisions based on a pre-requisite of subjective interpretation, and a lower class where the group is denied the same decision under identical circumstances due to a lack of the pre-requisite.
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: I cant wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Dude went full CNN...
Peace, love, and heavy weapons. Sometimes you have to be insistent." - David Lee Roth
  #75  
Old 03-23-2012, 11:02 AM
biochembruin biochembruin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 823
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
Maybe not, but I'm not some vaguely defined "defense expert on use of force" with intimate knowledge of legal precedence and it's application based on experience, I'm a common citizen that has to live his life every day under the circumstances that the same citizen in question that this law would cover has to live them. What I do understand is you are advocating a class-based system. An upper class group which is able to make decisions based on a pre-requisite of subjective interpretation, and a lower class where the group is denied the same decision under identical circumstances due to a lack of the pre-requisite.
No.You see there is no class based system since off duty officers are subject to this law as well. So an off duty officer being detained also has no right to resist in CA. In the same manner as an off duty officer can now resist under the guise of the law we're discussing.

Ignorance of something is not an insult. If someone told me I didn't understand the finer points of medical practice I would not be hurt. My limits of knowledge would be taken into account when expressing my opinions on medicine.
__________________
The thing to do, my friends, is to admit to your fate with Christian resignation and live bravely until your appointed time." - Lee Marvin, "The Spikes Gang"
  #76  
Old 03-23-2012, 11:56 AM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,784
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biochembruin View Post
No.You see there is no class based system since off duty officers are subject to this law as well. So an off duty officer being detained also has no right to resist in CA. In the same manner as an off duty officer can now resist under the guise of the law we're discussing.

Ignorance of something is not an insult. If someone told me I didn't understand the finer points of medical practice I would not be hurt. My limits of knowledge would be taken into account when expressing my opinions on medicine.
An off-duty officer has no right to resist a lawful detainment, as anyone else, but if the same officer was off duty, asleep at his house when an erroneous warrant was served on his home, and he shoots or injures an officer, why should he be liable for prosecution? What about an attack by a fellow officer? Why should any citizen be prosecuted for these things? The main cause of this law was these types of incidents, with a citizen reacting as any one of us would, then suffering from prosecutorial attacks due to a lack of protection from them. Bear in mind, in the event something like this DOES happen, you can bet the citizen will STILL be prosecuted, but at least they will have a legal defense they can utilize to prevent an unneccessary conviction. There was no law previously, but criminals still acted like they did nothing wrong and resisted arrest and assaulted officers. The only people punished under the old system were innocent people caught in situations they did not seek out reacting as any reasonable person would react.
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: I cant wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Dude went full CNN...
Peace, love, and heavy weapons. Sometimes you have to be insistent." - David Lee Roth
  #77  
Old 03-23-2012, 2:23 PM
biochembruin biochembruin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 823
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
An off-duty officer has no right to resist a lawful detainment, as anyone else, but if the same officer was off duty, asleep at his house when an erroneous warrant was served on his home, and he shoots or injures an officer, why should he be liable for prosecution? What about an attack by a fellow officer? Why should any citizen be prosecuted for these things? The main cause of this law was these types of incidents, with a citizen reacting as any one of us would, then suffering from prosecutorial attacks due to a lack of protection from them. Bear in mind, in the event something like this DOES happen, you can bet the citizen will STILL be prosecuted, but at least they will have a legal defense they can utilize to prevent an unneccessary conviction. There was no law previously, but criminals still acted like they did nothing wrong and resisted arrest and assaulted officers. The only people punished under the old system were innocent people caught in situations they did not seek out reacting as any reasonable person would react.
So the only people punished were innocent? That seems like quite a sweeping statement. And if that sweeping statement was the justification for this law than it seems misplaced.
__________________
The thing to do, my friends, is to admit to your fate with Christian resignation and live bravely until your appointed time." - Lee Marvin, "The Spikes Gang"

Last edited by biochembruin; 03-23-2012 at 2:27 PM..
  #78  
Old 03-23-2012, 2:52 PM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,784
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biochembruin View Post
So the only people punished were innocent? That seems like quite a sweeping statement. And if that sweeping statement was the justification for this law than it seems misplaced.
If the warrant was incorrect and the homeowner reacted, or the person was illegally assaulted and fought back, then yes, they were ALL innocent, but still prosecuted. Why is this so hard for you to grasp this concept? It would seem to be relatively simple: An incorrectly served warrant at the incorrect address would, by default mean the person in the home was obviously innocent of the crime the warrant was there to be served for, and an illegal attack by a police officer on ANYONE would, by default, make that person innocent of the crime of assault in return, had it not been a police officer who initiated the incident. Obviously a LAWFUL entry or a LAWFUL detainment and physical altercation would, by default, not involve an innocent party at all times.
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: I cant wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Dude went full CNN...
Peace, love, and heavy weapons. Sometimes you have to be insistent." - David Lee Roth
  #79  
Old 03-23-2012, 3:01 PM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,784
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Let's take this one more step:

Officer Bill and a small team is serving a warrant on the correct address. The person involved in the warrant is also at the address. The person is the cousin of the homeowner. The homeowner is unaware there is a warrant for his cousin's arrest, but is allowing him to sleep in his home for a short time. The team arrives, feels that the subject is dangerous and likely to flee, so they decide to proceed with the entry. The homeowner is jolted awake, see's armed men running into his home, has legitimate concerns for the well-being of his family, grabs his firearm (assuming he is also not wanted for anything and the firerarm is "clean") and shoots. Officer Bill is hit, but not killed. The homeowner is also shot and survives.

Is this not the situation where a reasonable person would rightly assume something was wrong and that he needed to react appropriately? Would this also be a situation where prosecuting the homeowner was wrong? Yet, under Indiana law, this type of occurrance DID happen and there WERE prosecutions. You act as though the homeowners should make sure they are proven to be a threat and NOT police before they are allowed to take action. If a stranger walks up to you and throws a punch, are you required to request proper ID to verify the aggressor is not a police officer before trying to not get hit?
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: I cant wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Dude went full CNN...
Peace, love, and heavy weapons. Sometimes you have to be insistent." - David Lee Roth
  #80  
Old 03-23-2012, 3:27 PM
CalCop CalCop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacto Area
Posts: 573
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What I said,
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalCop View Post
it is plausible that some readers of the law will take unlawful action as a result of reading and misunderstanding the spirit of this law.
What the governor said,
Quote:
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels admits he shares concerns that some might misinterpret a new law that lays out when residents could be legally justified in using force against police. www.policeone.com/legal/articles/5321745-Right-to-resist-police-signed-into-law-by-Ind-governor/
Even with the governor's valid concern, he still felt the cost of freedom was worth the risk. I tend to agree with his assessment and am willing to take the risk for freedom's sake.
__________________
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen."
-- Sir Robert Peel
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:52 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.