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
  #81  
Old 03-23-2012, 8:05 PM
biochembruin biochembruin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 823
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
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?
I think perhaps you're missing the point I'm trying to make, as your example precisely made my point. In your example, Officer Bill is shot while legally executing a search warrant. This is precisely my point: This law will allow someone to legally attack an officer who is committing a legal act. Remember, this law applies to much more than warrant service. Remember also that Officer Bill is not merely following the law, but engaging in an act that our Founding Fathers saw fit to add to the Bill of Rights. He is doing exactly what they wanted: That searches should be conducted based on probable cause as demonstrated in a warrant. And for legally following exactly what the Bill of Rights stipulates, he was shot.

I don't think you realize exactly what happens at a warrant service. If we're assuming Officer Bill is doing everything correctly, as is your example, then the warrant was signed by the judge, Bill knocked and announced his presence, and was readily identifiable as an officer. This new law provides a legal defense for shooting Bill (homeowner can say he didn't believe the officer was an officer, can say he didn't see a badge, or can say he didn't hear the announcement). If a single juror thinks that is a reasonable explanation, the homeowner will not be charged with any crime for shooting an officer legally carrying out his duty, even if he was readily identifiable as an officer and followed the law by announcing his presence and waiting. Think of it this way also: If the homeowner did know Bill was an officer, but explained his acts to create doubt in someone's mind that the homeowner knew Bill was an officer, he would not be charged with a crime.

No legal right is unlimited. I don't believe someone should have the right to defend themselves from officers who are acting in a legal manner to uphold the law. I have no problem with someone defending themselves from illegal acts.
__________________
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"
  #82  
Old 03-23-2012, 8:08 PM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,777
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biochembruin View Post
I think perhaps you're missing the point I'm trying to make, as your example precisely made my point. In your example, Officer Bill is shot while legally executing a search warrant. This is precisely my point: This law will allow someone to legally attack an officer who is committing a legal act. Remember, this law applies to much more than warrant service. Remember also that Officer Bill is not merely following the law, but engaging in an act that our Founding Fathers saw fit to add to the Bill of Rights. He is doing exactly what they wanted: That searches should be conducted based on probable cause as demonstrated in a warrant. And for legally following exactly what the Bill of Rights stipulates, he was shot.

I don't think you realize exactly what happens at a warrant service. If we're assuming Officer Bill is doing everything correctly, as is your example, then the warrant was signed by the judge, Bill knocked and announced his presence, and was readily identifiable as an officer. This new law provides a legal defense for shooting Bill (homeowner can say he didn't believe the officer was an officer, can say he didn't see a badge, or can say he didn't hear the announcement). If a single juror thinks that is a reasonable explanation, the homeowner will not be charged with any crime for shooting an officer legally carrying out his duty, even if he was readily identifiable as an officer and followed the law by announcing his presence and waiting. Think of it this way also: If the homeowner did know Bill was an officer, but explained his acts to create doubt in someone's mind that the homeowner knew Bill was an officer, he would not be charged with a crime.

No legal right is unlimited. I don't believe someone should have the right to defend themselves from officers who are acting in a legal manner to uphold the law. I have no problem with someone defending themselves from illegal acts.

You didn't pay attention. It's a no-knock, unnanounced warrant, which was the entire basis of this law. You really need to eliminate your own bias from the situation before you attempt to analyze it.
__________________
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

Last edited by njineermike; 03-23-2012 at 8:13 PM..
  #83  
Old 03-23-2012, 8:14 PM
biochembruin biochembruin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 823
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
You see it your way, and large portion of people see it otherwise.
Of course. But having a large number of people think one way doesn't make it right, as is evidenced by history. I am grateful California has no such 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"
  #84  
Old 03-23-2012, 8:17 PM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,777
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biochembruin View Post
Of course. But having a large number of people think one way doesn't make it right, as is evidenced by history. I am grateful California has no such law.
Good. Then, next time an illegally executed warrant results in you sitting in a courtroom for making decision to protect yourself or your family, you can thank the California legislature for seeing things your way.
__________________
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
  #85  
Old 03-23-2012, 8:17 PM
biochembruin biochembruin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 823
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
You didn't pay attention. It's a no-knock, unnanounced warrant, which was the entire basis of this law. You really need to eliminate your own bias from the situation before you attempt to analyze it.
You didn't say anything about "no-knock" warrant. You only said they made entry. Read your own example.

And you do realize that it is not always necessary to comply with knock and notice. So even a "no-knock" warrant (which doesn't exist in California) could be legal.
__________________
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"
  #86  
Old 03-23-2012, 8:20 PM
biochembruin biochembruin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 823
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
Good. Then, next time an illegally executed warrant results in you sitting in a courtroom for making decision to protect yourself or your family, you can thank the California legislature for seeing things your way.
Your statement doesn't make any sense. I'm not talking about illegal warrants. I'm talking about legal police actions.
__________________
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"
  #87  
Old 03-23-2012, 8:20 PM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,777
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biochembruin View Post
You didn't say anything about "no-knock" warrant. You only said they made entry. Read your own example.

And you do realize that it is not always necessary to comply with knock and notice. So even a "no-knock" warrant (which doesn't exist in California) could be legal.
The entire argument has been about unnanounced entry. You did read the part about the unnanounced warrants being the root cause of this didn't you? Or did you simply have a kneejerk reaction and read your own bias into it?
__________________
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
  #88  
Old 03-23-2012, 8:22 PM
biochembruin biochembruin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 823
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
The entire argument has been about unnanounced entry. You did read the part about the unnanounced warrants being the root cause of this didn't you? Or did you simply have a kneejerk reaction and read your own bias into it?
Jesus, man, read the law. It says nothing about "no-knock" warrants. Even if a "no-knock" warrant was the root issue, the law went far beyond addressing that.
__________________
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"
  #89  
Old 03-23-2012, 8:25 PM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,777
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biochembruin View Post
Jesus, man, read the law. It says nothing about "no-knock" warrants. Even if a "no-knock" warrant was the root issue, the law went far beyond addressing that.
You're correct. It do go far beyind that. It also addressed illegal actions by police officers that had ALSO been a problem in the area. I'm guessing you haven't spent much time living in the small town midwest or you'd know what life is like there.
__________________
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
  #90  
Old 03-23-2012, 8:32 PM
biochembruin biochembruin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 823
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
You're correct. It do go far beyind that. It also addressed illegal actions by police officers that had ALSO been a problem in the area. I'm guessing you haven't spent much time living in the small town midwest or you'd know what life is like there.
I think you either don't understand the law, or are refusing to based on your past bad experiences with law enforcement. You also seem to be becoming more agitated.

As I stated numerous times, I have no problem with someone defending themselves from an illegal act. Again, this law goes beyond that. In attempting to address illegal actions by police, the law now allows someone to legally use violence against an officer conducting a completely legal act.
__________________
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"
  #91  
Old 03-23-2012, 8:45 PM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,777
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biochembruin View Post
I think you either don't understand the law, or are refusing to based on your past bad experiences with law enforcement. You also seem to be becoming more agitated.

As I stated numerous times, I have no problem with someone defending themselves from an illegal act. Again, this law goes beyond that. In attempting to address illegal actions by police, the law now allows someone to legally use violence against an officer conducting a completely legal act.
I'm not agitated, but you seem to be making broad based assumptions on application of a law that hasn't even been tested yet.
__________________
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
  #92  
Old 03-24-2012, 3:04 AM
retired retired is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 9,673
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalCop View Post
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.
Your humble opinion is noted, but if you believe someone is "trolling," report the post by clicking on the red triangle in the upper right corner of the offending post. Write your comment in the page that appears and submit it. All of us mods and admins. receive that as an email and one of us will handle it appropriately. Thank you.
  #93  
Old 03-24-2012, 3:46 AM
DirtyLaundry DirtyLaundry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: La Jolla
Posts: 1,473
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I present Exhibit-A on why this type of legislation has a place:

LINK

Things like that are unacceptable and the citizen should be protected should he attempt to defend himself from an unknown threat entering his home. Had that man had a home defense weapon and killed one of those officers that had wrongfully entered his home(improper/non-existant warrant, no investigation), he would have been tried for murder. I think no knock warrants are a very misguided and WAY overused 'tool' that LE use for cases where it is unnecessary and excessive. The number of no-knock warrants have been rising very quickly in the past ten years and used for less and less severe suspected crimes. It puts LEO's and citizens alike in excessive danger by creating high tension 'weapons hot' type scenarios with lots of confusion and room for error on BOTH sides.

I think getting rid of the no-knock warrant altogether, or at least severely limiting its use, would have a much greater effect than the proposed legislation in the OP. Eliminate the gray area where cops are on people's property unannounced with questionable legality and you mitigate the chances of a well intending home-owner from shooting an officer in defense of their home.

I also recall a case in Canada where a no-knock raid took place on 'suspected drug dealer' or similar. The homeowner drew his home defense handgun to protect himself and his wife and shot two LEO's when they attempted to enter his bedroom, killing one. No drugs were found, he was charged with murder and later acquitted after a lengthy murder trial and deafening outcry from the LE community calling him a "cop killer".

Had that occurred in the U.S. I'm nearly positive he'd be spending the rest of his life in prison for defending his family. I find this unacceptable.
  #94  
Old 03-24-2012, 6:44 AM
biochembruin biochembruin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 823
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
I'm not agitated, but you seem to be making broad based assumptions on application of a law that hasn't even been tested yet.
There's no assumption. Here's a portion of the law: http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/text/604018

(i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:
(1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;
(2) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or
(3) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.
(j) Notwithstanding subsection (i), a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes action by the public servant with intent to cause bodily injury to the public servant;
(3) the person has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the public servant the intent to do so and the public servant nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action; or
(4) the person reasonably believes the public servant is:
(A) acting lawfully; or
(B) engaged in the lawful execution of the public servant's official duties.
(k) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless:
(1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is:
(A) acting unlawfully; or
(B) not engaged in the execution of the public servant's official duties; and
(2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.


The parts in bold provide for use of force against a police officer in circumstances other than entry into a home. There is no mention anywhere in the law of warrant service, be it "no-knock" or other. It only says "entry." There could be a number of legal reasons to make entry besides warrant service. Legally, "entry" does not assume "forced entry."
__________________
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"
  #95  
Old 03-24-2012, 8:17 AM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,777
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Exactly. The point being that prior to this, there was no provision at all to legally defend oneself when a police officer acted illegally and attacked another person. Even an illegal assault did not allow a defense without being subject to prosecution. Then again, this has been pointed out repeatedly, but you seem completely incapable of grasping this relatively simple concept. I find it in incredibly hard to believe you could be some sort of expert on use of force, yet unable to comprehend the point of the law.
__________________
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

Last edited by njineermike; 03-24-2012 at 4:42 PM..
  #96  
Old 03-24-2012, 8:51 AM
gixxnrocket gixxnrocket is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 371
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
I present Exhibit-A on why this type of legislation has a place:

LINK
Thanks for the link definatly going to pay attention to this thread. After the raid on Jose Guerena this is always in the back of my mind. (not that I have any reason to have my door kicked in by LE)

Video
Wiki

There's a lot of intellegent individuals here
-Subscribed
  #97  
Old 03-24-2012, 3:33 PM
Freagan's Avatar
Freagan Freagan is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,567
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

"The number of no-knock raids has increased from 3,000 in 1981 to more than 50,000 in 2005, according to Peter Kraska, a criminologist at Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond, Kentucky."


Here are some numbers from wikipedia. I would rather see no knock warrants be ruled unconstitutional, then we wouldn't even have to worry about this scenario to begin with.
__________________
http://i.imgur.com/kJeEntw.jpg?1
  #98  
Old 03-24-2012, 4:29 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 Freagan View Post
"The number of no-knock raids has increased from 3,000 in 1981 to more than 50,000 in 2005, according to Peter Kraska, a criminologist at Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond, Kentucky."


Here are some numbers from wikipedia. I would rather see no knock warrants be ruled unconstitutional, then we wouldn't even have to worry about this scenario to begin with.
Here is the link to the Cato Institute's report "Overkill:Rise of the Paramilitary Police Raids in America" that shows a growing trend of the over use and resulting problems with no-knock warrants. The interactive map can be found here.
__________________
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"
  #99  
Old 03-24-2012, 4:46 PM
tyrist tyrist is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,566
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrdchivalry View Post
Here is the link to the Cato Institute's report "Overkill:Rise of the Paramilitary Police Raids in America" that shows a growing trend of the over use and resulting problems with no-knock warrants. The interactive map can be found here.
Mr Radley Balko needs to work on his critical thinking. Some of his statements left me scratching my head. The largest one is talking about the police using informants of questionable repute. Does he really think upstanding citizens make good informants on the criminal underworld?
  #100  
Old 03-24-2012, 5:11 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 tyrist View Post
Mr Radley Balko needs to work on his critical thinking. Some of his statements left me scratching my head. The largest one is talking about the police using informants of questionable repute. Does he really think upstanding citizens make good informants on the criminal underworld?
That still does not dismiss the problems or render the report invalid.

I think one of the problems he point out in regards to informants is the use of informants who have a history of giving bad info and the police still act on it without question.
__________________
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"

Last edited by lrdchivalry; 03-24-2012 at 5:16 PM..
  #101  
Old 03-24-2012, 9:06 PM
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by biochembruin View Post
Proper application of existing laws.
And what does one do when those existing laws are not properly applied, as appears to be the case in parts of Indiana?

Quote:
Originally Posted by biochembruin View Post
Remember not every entry is illegal, even if knock and notice requirements are not necessary for a given situation.
What about when they are illegal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by biochembruin View Post
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.
So would it then be called a "no-knock break-in" when the police have illegally broken down people's doors like this? Sadly, that has happened.
__________________
"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.
  #102  
Old 03-25-2012, 6:41 AM
biochembruin biochembruin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 823
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
Exactly. The point being that prior to this, there was no provision at all to legally defend oneself when a police officer acted illegally and attacked another person. Even an illegal assault did not allow a defense without being subject to prosecution. Then again, this has been pointed out repeatedly, but you seem completely incapable of grasping this relatively simple concept. I find it in incredibly hard to believe you could be some sort of expert on use of force, yet unable to comprehend the point of the law.
If you are going to question my credibility as an expert, I can voir dire myself. Attacking ones credibility is a valid legal argument. But be prepared to explain your expertise as well.

I have been formally trained in law and received basic, intermediate, and advanced certification from the state. Court-recognized experts in various areas of law, including use of force, have educated me. I have practiced law, in an enforcement capacity, for several years. During this time, I have been involved in dozens of uses of force. Each one has been examined by my department, and/or by a court of law and been found to be both legal and within department policy. This demonstrates that I have the ability to understand and apply the law regarding use of force. I have taught use of force, including use of deadly force, during my time as a state certified firearms instructor for my department, as well as for a private company. I have testified several times in Superior Court regarding use of force, and have been deemed a court expert in that area.

Im not claiming to be an expert on tax law or immigration law. Im not claiming to be an expert in whatever profession you do, which Im sure youre much better at than myself. Im claiming to be an expert on the legal use of force. I am a professional, and an expert in my field, much the way a professional athlete or a surgeon would be. In a court of law, my opinion on such matters is regarded as fact, subject to dispute only by another court expert or the demonstrable facts of the case.

Assuming all this is true, and assuming your legal expertise on the matter is less than mine, then who is more likely to be misunderstanding this law? What is your legal training, anyway?

To address your point directly, I never stated that this law would not provide protection against an illegal assault by an officer. Read each of my posts and find where I made such an assertion. Its not there. In fact, this law will provide a legal defense for an innocent person subject to an illegal assault by an officer. For the last time, my point is this: This law will also provide a legal defense for someone to attack an officer who is legally carrying out his duty, under the guise that the person attacking the officer reasonably believed the officer was acting illegally. In short, someone can legally attack an officer who is acting in a legal manner.

And as I stated before, this law will have several unintended 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"
  #103  
Old 03-25-2012, 6:45 AM
biochembruin biochembruin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 823
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freagan View Post
"The number of no-knock raids has increased from 3,000 in 1981 to more than 50,000 in 2005, according to Peter Kraska, a criminologist at Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond, Kentucky."


Here are some numbers from wikipedia. I would rather see no knock warrants be ruled unconstitutional, then we wouldn't even have to worry about this scenario to begin with.
On what grounds can a "no-knock" warrant be ruled unconstitutional? The 4th Amendment says nothing about a knock and notice requirement:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
__________________
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"
  #104  
Old 03-25-2012, 7:35 AM
PatriotnMore's Avatar
PatriotnMore PatriotnMore is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Anaheim Hills, CA
Posts: 7,076
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

I guessed you missed "unreasonable". A "No Knock" is unreasonable, as applied in many raids it is used for. Your logic, other than it being poorly written, and I am not convinced it is, uses the same type of mentality and logic that is creating these types of laws against citizens, yet flips when it's against LE.

I rarely, if ever, hear complaints, by and large from LE on laws that provide more power and control, and yet when laws are suggested to remove, or empower citizens against LE abuses, it's all bad law, poorly written and will create mass LE deaths and blood in the street. I mean because, you know, most of us can't wait to get out there and get into it with LE.
__________________
‎"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."
--James Madison
'Letter to Edmund Pendleton', 1792

Last edited by PatriotnMore; 03-25-2012 at 7:38 AM..
  #105  
Old 03-25-2012, 7:51 AM
biochembruin biochembruin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 823
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

What people forget is that law enforcement officers are citizens too. They are subject to the same laws as everyone else regarding search and seizure.

Edit: After further research, it seems the knock and notice requirement is based on the "reasonableness" test of the 4th Amendment. See Wilson (1995) 514 U.S. 927, 930 and Hoag (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1198, 1209. However, violation of the knock and notice requirement will not result in suppression of evidence. See Hudson (2006) 126 S.Ct. 2159 and Frank S. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 145, 152. The basis for this is that even if the warrant was executed in an unlawful manner, the warrant still provided authorization to enter and seize evidence, as decided in Hudson, which states, the "knock and announce" rule does not protect "one's interest in preventing the government from searching or taking evidence described in a warrant." In Hudson, the Supreme Court further stated that failure to comply with knock and notice would be a basis for a 42 U.S.C. 1983 civil rights action, not suppression of evidence, or use of force against law enforcement to prevent an entry.
__________________
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; 03-25-2012 at 8:19 AM..
  #106  
Old 03-25-2012, 8:25 AM
PatriotnMore's Avatar
PatriotnMore PatriotnMore is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Anaheim Hills, CA
Posts: 7,076
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

They are not the same when qualified immunity is applied for LE, and none is allowed to citizens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity
__________________
‎"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."
--James Madison
'Letter to Edmund Pendleton', 1792
  #107  
Old 03-25-2012, 8:39 AM
biochembruin biochembruin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 823
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatriotnMore View Post
They are not the same when qualified immunity is applied for LE, and none is allowed to citizens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity
It doesn't apply to an officer subject to a search warrant. It is not absolute immunity, as the immunity only qualifies under certain circumstances. A great example would be narcotics. When an officer seizes narcotics lawfully while on duty, he is immune from prosecution for violating laws against possession of narcotics. If an officer is found in possession of narcotics while off duty, the officer is not immune from prosecution, and is in violation of laws against possession of narcotics.
__________________
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"
  #108  
Old 03-25-2012, 9:08 AM
PatriotnMore's Avatar
PatriotnMore PatriotnMore is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Anaheim Hills, CA
Posts: 7,076
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

I understand it is not "absolute immunity", and I did not assert it is. My assertions are, the laws and protections are not equally applied or written, if, or when a citizens feels he needs to defend themselves against an abusive LEO, as they are, if, or when an LEO feels he needs to defend themselves against an abusive citizen.

Both are abusive, yet the protections under the law, where it appears you are defending them as equal for both, in reality are not. What a citizen would under go in treatment by LE and prosecutors, financially, and equally important, emotionally, is not equal by any means.

To suggest a citizen needs to accept whatever an abusive LEO wants to deal out, without the right and protections under the law equally applied, when a citizen is so fearful for their life they feel compelled to defend themselves, is biased and one sided, which leads me to feel you are only concerned about protecting what is good and fair for LE, not all citizens under the law.
__________________
‎"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."
--James Madison
'Letter to Edmund Pendleton', 1792
  #109  
Old 03-25-2012, 9:15 AM
adrenaline's Avatar
adrenaline adrenaline is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,442
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalCop View Post
As a cop, and a hardcore Libertarian, I understand both sides of this issue.

Law abiding, service-oriented cops may not understand the reason for this law, because they do the right thing for their fellow citizens...acknowledging they are no better than their neighbors who farm or work on cars. In fact, they find it their duty to serve their neighbors and fellow citizens...knowing a higher degree of integrity and professionalism is required of them, especially while in uniform.

The problem is, there are those over zealous, badge-heavy JBTs in almost every department....you know who they are if you're a cop in an agency of at least moderate size. This law is necessary because of those JBTs...again, a blanket law is written for the screw ups of the few. Some of your partners are your own worst enemies.

That being said, I agree the law could have been written better, and 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.

Check out my signature, fellow cops....that's what it's all about.
+1^99999

I am for one really glad that this cal cop is in Sac. In the non-LEO thread, I posted about fake LEO robbing and murdering homeowners in AZ. Like CalCop said, those that do their job really well may find it hard to understand the spirit of this law....those that abuse their job...will find it difficult to swallow.
__________________


"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"- Patrick Henry.

Our Founders Views Regarding the 2nd Amendment - Right to Keep and Bear Arms
  #110  
Old 03-25-2012, 9:45 AM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,777
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biochembruin View Post
If you are going to question my credibility as an expert, I can voir dire myself. Attacking one’s credibility is a valid legal argument. But be prepared to explain your expertise as well.

I have been formally trained in law and received basic, intermediate, and advanced certification from the state. Court-recognized experts in various areas of law, including use of force, have educated me. I have practiced law, in an enforcement capacity, for several years. During this time, I have been involved in dozens of uses of force. Each one has been examined by my department, and/or by a court of law and been found to be both legal and within department policy. This demonstrates that I have the ability to understand and apply the law regarding use of force. I have taught use of force, including use of deadly force, during my time as a state certified firearms instructor for my department, as well as for a private company. I have testified several times in Superior Court regarding use of force, and have been deemed a court expert in that area.

I’m not claiming to be an expert on tax law or immigration law. I’m not claiming to be an expert in whatever profession you do, which I’m sure you’re much better at than myself. I’m claiming to be an expert on the legal use of force. I am a professional, and an expert in my field, much the way a professional athlete or a surgeon would be. In a court of law, my opinion on such matters is regarded as fact, subject to dispute only by another court expert or the demonstrable facts of the case.

Assuming all this is true, and assuming your legal expertise on the matter is less than mine, then who is more likely to be misunderstanding this law? What is your legal training, anyway?

To address your point directly, I never stated that this law would not provide protection against an illegal assault by an officer. Read each of my posts and find where I made such an assertion. It’s not there. In fact, this law will provide a legal defense for an innocent person subject to an illegal assault by an officer. For the last time, my point is this: This law will also provide a legal defense for someone to attack an officer who is legally carrying out his duty, under the guise that the person attacking the officer reasonably believed the officer was acting illegally. In short, someone can legally attack an officer who is acting in a legal manner.

And as I stated before, this law will have several unintended consequences.
I wasn't questioning your expertise, merley your inability to comprehend the fact that the basis for this was a history of abusive prosecutions that should never have occurred in the first place, and wondered if your testimony could be objective in any way, based on the arguments you post here. Your myopic view of the situation mirrors the anti-2A crowd that use the argument that all care should be taken to protect police, yet no care should be taken to protect citizens.

All laws have unintended consequences. This will be no different, but your assertations that there will be sudden increase in attacks on LEO's based on this law is as much fear-mongering as anything. Those that would attack police officers will ALREADY do that. Since when do they need a law for this? They will also be arrested, as will any citizen who uses force to defend themselves when the police are involved. They will all have to prove in court that they had good reason. The main issue with your contention that they appeals court can rule in favor of ther citizen fails to account for the fact that a citizen will STILL have to go to prison before an appeal is heard and will STILL be subject to a loss of money and freedom, and none of these will ever be regained. Money may be repayable, but the time will always be lost, not to mention the abuses one would encounter in a prison environment.

You seem to be fixated on the legalities and minutea of the service of a warrant, not the protection of the liberties of the people. The entire issue is the protection of common citizens against abusive practices by police. I for one would rather be able to use a defense in court that I honestly believed my life was in danger and not go to prision in the first place than NOT be able to use it and hope it gets overturned on appeal. The years of prison rapes and fights while I wait and hope doesn't seem too inviting. Criminals are already criminals. The new law won't change that, but it might give someone who ISN'T a criminal the hope of not spending time in prison getting that point proven.
__________________
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
  #111  
Old 03-25-2012, 10:22 AM
cannon's Avatar
cannon cannon is online now
New Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Mojave Desert
Posts: 8,136
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

This law is a standard lawmaker response to a situation.

The situation is that LEO's in parts of Indiana were abusing their authority and using the then current law to do so. It appears to be a "Double Dip" by the LEO's in question. First either illegally or improperly assaulting citizens and then arresting those assault victims who defend themselves.

The new law is the usual overboard response of lawmakers. Although it's hard for me to use the term overboard when it comes to citizens rights I think the new law is too broad.

I've read many responses from members here stating they had no concern as they were law abiding. That is the problem. Imagine a law abiding citizen asleep in his or her bed when unannounced an LEO agency kicks in their door. Which happens to be the incorrect door. A mistake in the informants info, wrong address on the warrant or the officer just go to the wrong house. It has all happened before. In the law abiding citizens mind a criminal break in has occurred and he or she is in life threatening danger.

Would it be justice if the innocent homeowner in fear for his/her life and the lives of other family members went to jail for protecting them in their home?
__________________
I let my wife choose my hobby.
I said I either wanted to chase younger women or shoot.

Here I am.

"I'm for Hoffa until they pat my face with a shovel and steal my cufflinks." Frank Sheerin. Man who admitted killing Hoffa
  #112  
Old 03-25-2012, 10:40 AM
biochembruin biochembruin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 823
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

The minutia of the law is the heart of the matter. I never meant to claim there would be a sudden increase in attacks on law enforcement. Nor that this law would not provide some protections. I stated the law would also provide for legal attacks on law enforcement officers who are acting legally. Thereby giving a legal defense that could be used for nefarious purposes.

There are several Federal and California statues already in place which allow for holding officers personally responsible for their actions in both a civil and criminal nature. Courts have held that it is safe to assume that the overwhelming majority of officers conduct themselves in a legal manner, and as such, the assumption should be that they are acting in a legal manner until demonstrated otherwise. Based on this assumption, courts have ruled that people do not have the right to resist officers because resistance will not stop an officer's actions, but will likely escalate the violence of the situation. In addition, courts have held that since there are legal avenues to redress any illegal police action, then resistance at the scene is not allowed. The new law goes against years of Supreme Court precedence, and it will be interesting to see how it stands up to legal challenges.
__________________
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"
  #113  
Old 03-25-2012, 4:37 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 9,369
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
I wasn't questioning your expertise, merley your inability to comprehend the fact that the basis for this was a history of abusive prosecutions that should never have occurred in the first place, and wondered if your testimony could be objective in any way, based on the arguments you post here. Your myopic view of the situation mirrors the anti-2A crowd that use the argument that all care should be taken to protect police, yet no care should be taken to protect citizens.
Here's the difference in a opinion more based on feelings and a opinion based on years of experience. You say biochembruin lacks the ability to comprehend the basis for the law. In addition you call his view "myopic".

Thats funny because as LEO's we see people at their best and at their worst. In fact we really see people as they truly are. Thats why based on years of real experience dealing with criminals he has the opinion that the law will lead to no good end. Every day LEO's see people lie, cheat and steal. They will do anything, and I mean anything to try and minimize their involvement in crimes or will try and use force against LEO's if they think they have a chance of escaping.

So this misguided law will just give some one more reason to try and justify their resistance to lawful law enforcement actions, regardless of the outcome.

You see you don't have a criminal mindset. So you don't see any down side to the law. Because you don't deal with the criminal element on a day to day basis you don't see the depths they will go to to justify their criminal actions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
All laws have unintended consequences. This will be no different, but your assertations that there will be sudden increase in attacks on LEO's based on this law is as much fear-mongering as anything. Those that would attack police officers will ALREADY do that. Since when do they need a law for this? They will also be arrested, as will any citizen who uses force to defend themselves when the police are involved. They will all have to prove in court that they had good reason. The main issue with your contention that they appeals court can rule in favor of ther citizen fails to account for the fact that a citizen will STILL have to go to prison before an appeal is heard and will STILL be subject to a loss of money and freedom, and none of these will ever be regained. Money may be repayable, but the time will always be lost, not to mention the abuses one would encounter in a prison environment.
Yes those who attack the police will continue to do just that, and those who used to just consider it may now take the next step and be emboldened to actually act.

The problem with using force against the police is this. When a LEO has force used against him he will use the tools at his disposal to overcome that force.


Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
You seem to be fixated on the legalities and minutea of the service of a warrant, not the protection of the liberties of the people. The entire issue is the protection of common citizens against abusive practices by police. I for one would rather be able to use a defense in court that I honestly believed my life was in danger and not go to prision in the first place than NOT be able to use it and hope it gets overturned on appeal. The years of prison rapes and fights while I wait and hope doesn't seem too inviting. Criminals are already criminals. The new law won't change that, but it might give someone who ISN'T a criminal the hope of not spending time in prison getting that point proven.
The devil is always in the details.

And remember police officers are "common citizens" also. They are merely employed to enforce the laws the "people" have enacted. 99.9% of the police try very hard every day to do the best job they can, even though many of the people they deal with every day try to lie to them and make their jobs as difficult as possible.

Now this is another issue they will have to deal with.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.

Last edited by SVT-40; 03-25-2012 at 10:36 PM..
  #114  
Old 03-25-2012, 5:38 PM
Pfletch83 Pfletch83 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 201
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I have no problem with an LEO that is doing his/her job to the best of their ability,that is also in full respect to the laws of this land.

I DO have a problem with folks that abuse their offical capacity for their own gain.
__________________
It isn't the size of your hallway howitzer,it's how you use it.
  #115  
Old 03-25-2012, 5:58 PM
biochembruin biochembruin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 823
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

A final word on using force in self defense. The law (man's written law) provides for using force for self defense against an attack not for the purpose of dispensing justice or extracting revenge, but for stopping an attack only. Thus, the force used must be that which stops the attack, and no more. This is the reasoning behind court decisions that individuals do not have the right to resist officers, as the resistance will escalate the force used by officers, and is unlikely to stop an officer's actions. And as stated, court decisions emphasize the fact that there are other legal means to redress wrongs committed by officers.

And I completely agree with Pfletch83's statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pfletch83 View Post
I have no problem with an LEO that is doing his/her job to the best of their ability,that is also in full respect to the laws of this land.

I DO have a problem with folks that abuse their offical capacity for their own gain.
__________________
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"
  #116  
Old 03-26-2012, 12:24 AM
DirtyLaundry DirtyLaundry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: La Jolla
Posts: 1,473
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biochembruin View Post
A final word on using force in self defense. The law (man's written law) provides for using force for self defense against an attack not for the purpose of dispensing justice or extracting revenge, but for stopping an attack only. Thus, the force used must be that which stops the attack, and no more. This is the reasoning behind court decisions that individuals do not have the right to resist officers, as the resistance will escalate the force used by officers, and is unlikely to stop an officer's actions. And as stated, court decisions emphasize the fact that there are other legal means to redress wrongs committed by officers.
Let's play out a hypothetical real quick, as futile as that may be.

What if an overzealous LEO begins beating an unarmed suspect, perhapse with a nightstick or baton. Even after the suspect/perp. Is subdued, the beating continues, as we've seen happen before.

What if, in fear for his life, the man manages to wrestle the officers firearm away and shoots the officer dead.

Is there currently any law/statute that would protect the man from a murder conviction for defending, possibly his life, from a potentially lethal and presumably illegal beating? Does the law and current precedent expect the man should have just taken the potentially lethal beating?

If there is, is there even a remote likeliness of him escaping such a conviction? Would it go to trial? Let's assume this is a defense attorneys dream, evidence wise, for the sake of the exercise.

For fun, how do you think the officers union and law enforcement community in general would react? Would they be out for blood?

I understand the slippery slope we're on here, but I'm a bit curious and admittedly ignorant of the laws regarding this matter.
  #117  
Old 03-26-2012, 2:28 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 9,369
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
Let's play out a hypothetical real quick, as futile as that may be.

What if an overzealous LEO begins beating an unarmed suspect, perhapse with a nightstick or baton. Even after the suspect/perp. Is subdued, the beating continues, as we've seen happen before.

What if, in fear for his life, the man manages to wrestle the officers firearm away and shoots the officer dead.

Is there currently any law/statute that would protect the man from a murder conviction for defending, possibly his life, from a potentially lethal and presumably illegal beating? Does the law and current precedent expect the man should have just taken the potentially lethal beating?

If there is, is there even a remote likeliness of him escaping such a conviction? Would it go to trial? Let's assume this is a defense attorneys dream, evidence wise, for the sake of the exercise.

For fun, how do you think the officers union and law enforcement community in general would react? Would they be out for blood?

I understand the slippery slope we're on here, but I'm a bit curious and admittedly ignorant of the laws regarding this matter.


Couple of problems with your scenario. You assume the LEO is "overzealous" when using a baton or "night stick" on a "unarmed" suspect.

Thats what they are for. In a fight with a suspect a LEO is allowed to use his impact weapons to overcome physical resistance. So using a baton or night stick against a suspect who is physically resisting is reasonable.

The issue with determining just when a suspect is "subdued" would be different depending on who you spoke to. The suspect would probably always say the officer was unreasonable and he had "given up" when in fact he was still actively resisting.

The officer would probably always believe a suspect was resisting until he was actually able to get him handcuffed and then completely controlled where there was no active attempts to resist.

The problem with your scenario is you have a suspect who you first say is "subdued" then is actively trying to take a officers firearm.

A suspect who is trying to take a officers gun is not subdued.

In addition there is a specific section in the California penal code which makes it a crime to attempt to take a officers gun or other weapons .
So if a suspect attempted to take one of the officers weapons the officer would be legally able to use what ever reasonable force he needed to to prohibit the suspect from taking his firearm up to and including deadly force.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.
  #118  
Old 03-26-2012, 11:19 PM
DirtyLaundry DirtyLaundry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: La Jolla
Posts: 1,473
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
Couple of problems with your scenario.
So, what I take from that is basically.

-An officer is above commuting, and even incapable of committing, any wrongdoing despite the several examples of officers continuing to beat subdued and even restrained suspects. A certain famous Nixon line comes to mind.

-There is no provision in law for someone to defend themselves from an officer who is wrongfully threatening their life. Actually the opposite is true in this case.

-You've completely missed the point of my hypothetical exercise.

This is my scenario, I did not assume anything, I created it. In this scenario we have a bad cop doing bad things to an innocent man (until proven guilty). We have evidence that the cop was doing bad things in the line of duty by threatening the mans life. This lead to an escalation of the altercation that lead to the death of an officer in the line of duty.

You cannot make the argument that there are no bad cops or that these bad cops never do bad things in the line of duty. You also cannot argue that innocent people are never accosted or wrongly accused by police. As these things clearly aren't true this scenario cannot be ruled completely unrealistic or impossible.

So again, all the above being true lets revisit the scenario. Perhaps our bad cop has been having an especially bad day. Maybe even our innocent man said something disrespectful in passing that set our bad cop off, just for the sake of argument, but otherwise did nothing illegal.

Does our man have anything on the books that protects him, or more specifically allows him to protect himself, from said bad cop other than the idea that hopefully our bad cop has the judgement or restraint to not beat him to death? Is there no recourse to defend himself?

Quote:
The problem with your scenario is you have a suspect who you first say is "subdued" then is actively trying to take a officers firearm.
It is beside the point and scope of the exercise but for the hell of it, the suspect 'gives up' but the beating continues for an additional 30 seconds to a minute before the man realizes this is a life or death scenario and he must do something or he may die. Maybe he doesn't take the officers firearm but manages to push the officer into traffic or onto a sharp post or any number of other "Final Destination" type scenarios. Perhaps a bystander, in defense of the mans life, takes the officers firearm or has one himself and the leads to the officers death.

The who, what, and how in this scenario does not matter. We simply had a bad cop that is killed in self defense by someone who's life was wrongly threatened by that cop.

Perhaps you are of the opinion that there is no conceivable scenario that an officer could be justifiably killed in the line of duty? I have the feeling that that mere notion gets some people's blood boiling.

Believe me when I say I have the utmost respect for LEO's, believe the vast majority of officers are well intentioned, and I in no way think any officer should be killed in the line of duty. Nor am I advocating for changes in the law that make the killing of officers justifiable, I fully understand the slippery slope we're treading on here. This is simply a mental exercise pertaining to the topic at hand.

Last edited by DirtyLaundry; 03-26-2012 at 11:35 PM.. Reason: Clarification.
  #119  
Old 03-27-2012, 12:19 AM
Bodei Bodei is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 59
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Dear BIOCHEMBRUIN,
You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. I thank you for running with my thread and contributing clear, reasoned arguments. I was out of town for several days and you have more eloquently defended my objection to this poorly written law. There appear to be several people arguing in this thread that are non-law enforcement. Or if they are law enforcement, they have been poorly trained in the relevant state and Federal criminal/civil penalties for abuse of authority, misuse of force, etc. that already apply to police nationwide. I feel that this law is nothing more than an encouragement to folks to resist police and will result in the injury and death of NOT ONLY law enforcement officers, but also innocent folks that think they are "reasonably" resisting "illegal" police actions. Those of us in law enforcement know that everyone thinks they are lawyers and that they know the law better than us. This is where they get in trouble. This law aids and abets in this trouble. Law enforcement officers, as you point out, are not immune from liability. Citizens are not in a position to evaluate an officer's reasons for making an arrest or detention on them. Any LEO with any experience knows this. If a citizen believes they are being arrested or detained unlawfully, the time to deal with it IS IN THE COURT SYSTEM AFTERWARDS. This system works. Why do you think there are so many lawyers in this country? As LEOs we do not need to be explaining to people why they need to get on the ground proned-out and arguing with them. The people that are commenting about how they do everything legally so they have nothing to fear from this law are frightfully naive. From YOUR view, you are obeying the law. To the person you are trying to arrest, YOU are making an unlawful arrest of them and now they have the right to use force against you in their mind. Do you not see the harm in this?

If anyone wants to mistakenly serve a search warrant at my house, come on in, I could use a couple of million dollars! Biochembruin you can have 15% if you handle the case.
  #120  
Old 03-27-2012, 12:35 AM
DirtyLaundry DirtyLaundry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: La Jolla
Posts: 1,473
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodei View Post
If anyone wants to mistakenly serve a search warrant at my house, come on in, I could use a couple of million dollars! Biochembruin you can have 15% if you handle the case.
You seem to mistake the intent of the law. It is not to allow reason for using force against an officer. It is for protection of a homeowner who in defense of his family happens to shoot someone he perceived as a threat, and that person happened to be a police officer. In such a situation the person acted reasonably in defending himself against an unknown intruder, however without a law such as this he would be tried as a murderer.

This law of course leaves itself way open to abuse in its wording. But there is nothing wrong with the spirit and intent. The reasonable solution would be to completely ban or severely limit no-knock warrants. Taking the police out of situations where a citizen would otherwise be lawfully permitted to protect themselves with lethal force against an unknown and aggressive intruder would eliminate the problem almost entirely.

You and other seem to want to spin this law's supporters as people simply looking for a way to legally kill cops which is plainly wrong, misguided, and missing the point.
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 10:51 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.