View Full Version : Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Police.
Police officers in Indiana are upset over a new law allowing residents to use deadly force against public servants, including law enforcement officers, who unlawfully enter their homes. It was signed by Republican Governor Mitch Daniels in March
http://www.infowars.com/indiana-first-state-to-allow-citizens-to-shoot-law-enforcement-officers-2/
islandermyk
06-12-2012, 08:37
all I can say is... wow....
is this even news? someone kicks in my door, there will be lead flying. It doesn't matter to me how they're dressed
While I have the utmost respect for the boys in blue, an unlawful entry is an unlawful entry and should be met with the same measure of deadly force that anyone else would get.
I thought there was already federal precedence for this? I'm also with Joe, come kicking and I'll come shooting. The scariest part of this kind of door kicking action is that criminals have learned how to use it to their advantage. Last year some folks I know had their door kicked in and were robbed, and what were the assailants yelling as they came in? "Arapahoe County Sheriff! We have a warrant!"
Last year some folks I know had their door kicked in and were robbed, and what were the assailants yelling as they came in? "Arapahoe County Sheriff! We have a warrant!"
Yea, but how do you really combat that? If someone kicks in my door screaming they are the Sheriff and have a warrant how do you know it's not true. I would probably be dead on the floor without ever having raised my weapon - surely the intruders intent - but if for some reason they are legit I'm not going to start a firefight with the police.
Yea, but how do you really combat that? If someone kicks in my door screaming they are the Sheriff and have a warrant how do you know it's not true. I would probably be dead on the floor without ever having raised my weapon - surely the intruders intent - but if for some reason they are legit I'm not going to start a firefight with the police.
That's my point the performance of no-knocks creates that situation. Is some not flushed dope worth the lives of innocent civilians and officers? I don't think so
Zundfolge
06-12-2012, 09:05
Yea, but how do you really combat that? If someone kicks in my door screaming they are the Sheriff and have a warrant how do you know it's not true.
Life is all about managing statistical probability.
I operate under the assumption that since I don't engage in illegal activity that would draw a dynamic entry team to my door that the percentage probability that it is criminals posing as police and not the police themselves is significantly greater. Furthermore while we are all familiar with the idea that occasionally police SWAT teams make mistakes, end up at the wrong door or get bad intel, those events are still very very rare.
So the statistical probability is that its criminals attempting a home invasion robbery. I will respond accordingly.
That's my point the performance of no-knocks creates that situation. Is some not flushed dope worth the lives of innocent civilians and officers? I don't think so
I agree, the policies regarding no-knocks need serious revision.
Frankly the only legitimate reason for our police to engage in such para-military activity is in an active shooter or hostage rescue situation. Period.
Life is all about managing statistical probability.
I operate under the assumption that since I don't engage in illegal activity that would draw a dynamic entry team to my door
As do I, but who is to say that it's the wrong door or that someone called them in on you for completely false charges - whatever the case it can happen. Probability dictates that there is a 99% chance that it is an intruder, I have to ask myself if the 1% chance that it is real is worth the problems that result in taking action against the police.
I see it as a catch-22, damned if you do and damned if you don't. I think the only way to try to change that 1% chance is to have your weapon drawn and at the ready and demand to see the warrant or you will start shooting. I don't know, it's an interesting scenario that I have never really pondered before.
Zundfolge
06-12-2012, 09:43
As do I, but who is to say that it's the wrong door or that someone called them in on you for completely false charges - whatever the case it can happen. Probability dictates that there is a 99% chance that it is an intruder, I have to ask myself if the 1% chance that it is real is worth the problems that result in taking action against the police.
Life isn't fair and there's no guarantees ... all we have to go on is statistical probability.
Hesitation in such a situation will likely guarantee you end up with the dirty end of the stick.
I hope nobody here ever has to face that choice, but it's still something worth pondering (and seriously I doubt any of use ever will have to).
I think the only way to try to change that 1% chance is to have your weapon drawn and at the ready and demand to see the warrant or you will start shooting.
Yeah, real cops aren't going to stop what they're doing and say "why of course sir, here's the appropriate paperwork" when they come upon someone with a gun in their hand. If you draw you're gonna have to shoot no matter who it is. Since the chances that they'll be real cops is slim I'm ok with that.
trlcavscout
06-12-2012, 10:48
Life is all about managing statistical probability.
I operate under the assumption that since I don't engage in illegal activity that would draw a dynamic entry team to my door that the percentage probability that it is criminals posing as police and not the police themselves is significantly greater. Furthermore while we are all familiar with the idea that occasionally police SWAT teams make mistakes, end up at the wrong door or get bad intel, those events are still very very rare.
So the statistical probability is that its criminals attempting a home invasion robbery. I will respond accordingly.
I agree, the policies regarding no-knocks need serious revision.
Frankly the only legitimate reason for our police to engage in such para-military activity is in an active shooter or hostage rescue situation. Period.
All it takes is for some one to tell the goon squad (atf) that you have a wanted fellon inside and the will be there. They may not even kick the door? They may just open fire? Or they will kick the door and hold your whole family in cuffs at gun point while they shoot your your pets. History has proven that you can be law abiding and still get no-knocked due to bad intel and a lack of brain power. And by god if they have to come out they are at least shooting your pet!
Chad4000
06-12-2012, 10:49
Life is all about managing statistical probability.
I operate under the assumption that since I don't engage in illegal activity that would draw a dynamic entry team to my door that the percentage probability that it is criminals posing as police and not the police themselves is significantly greater. Furthermore while we are all familiar with the idea that occasionally police SWAT teams make mistakes, end up at the wrong door or get bad intel, those events are still very very rare.
So the statistical probability is that its criminals attempting a home invasion robbery. I will respond accordingly.
I agree, the policies regarding no-knocks need serious revision.
Frankly the only legitimate reason for our police to engage in such para-military activity is in an active shooter or hostage rescue situation. Period.
couldnt have said it better myself.... very well said..
The thing that really makes me dislike no knocks is. Most of the officers ionly know that they are raiding a certain address. I would hate for an officer to get shot just following the orders of the higher ups. Just like an innocent person getting shot by a wrong address no knock raid. These things need to really be reviewed more.
BPTactical
06-12-2012, 11:06
Does it really matter?
You open fire on LE during a no knock, be they right or wrong do you really think your going to survive?
ruthabagah
06-12-2012, 11:28
Does it really matter?
You open fire on LE during a no knock, be they right or wrong do you really think your going to survive?
+1. Yep my thought exactly.
JohnTRourke
06-12-2012, 11:33
an unlawful entry is an unlawful entry and should be met with the same measure of deadly force that anyone else would get.
exactly
don't unlawfully enter my house and we have no issues.
Jumpstart
06-12-2012, 11:56
Makes cops do the due their due deligience,homework as they should. Indiana is a bit freer for it's citizens today.
Does it really matter?
You open fire on LE during a no knock, be they right or wrong do you really think your going to survive?
The probability is, that if someone's kicking in my door, someone is going to die. It may be me...but my job as a husband and father is to make sure it's not my wife and children. There's absolutely no legal reason for anyone to be kicking in my door. To me, it is substantially more likely that whomever it is, is intent on doing myself and/or my family harm. In my home, that threat is met with armed resistance.
The police are welcome to ring my doorbell and/or call my home at anytime...and that conversation will be friendly and polite (even if I decide that my lawyer needs to be involved)
SuperiorDG
06-12-2012, 13:18
Does it really matter?
You open fire on LE during a no knock, be they right or wrong do you really think your going to survive?
Another reason to have body armor at the ready. They are more likely to shoot first if they see a gun. I for one would identify my target before putting my finger on the trigger.
Another reason to have body armor at the ready. They are more likely to shoot first if they see a gun. I for one would identify my target before putting my finger on the trigger.
Yes, but what if they are undercover. Now they SHOULD have a visible sign of being LEO, that should be the first clue. Secondly, I assume you don't wear your body armor 24/7 and if you do then I don't think I would like to smell what you're puttin' off [Coffee].
Does it really matter?
You open fire on LE during a no knock, be they right or wrong do you really think your going to survive?
Yep. agreed!
just quit with the no knock BS raids. too many mistakes have been made
Another reason to have body armor at the ready. They are more likely to shoot first if they see a gun. I for one would identify my target before putting my finger on the trigger.
That is completely false. Police are not just going to start shooting if they see a gun. They deal with people having guns a lot more than private Joe's. If you are holding a gun, follow their orders precisely, they will take it away from you with no fire being exchanged. They will then figure out that they royally f-ed up and are not in the right place. Going rambo against the cops because you have a duty to protect your family is not the right answer. Hell, I hope that the cops come unlawfully enter my home. Maybe they will hit me with a taser while they are in there! Then I can land a fat law suit and never work another day in my life....because being a cop sucks!
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/SE/SE0001.1.html
Yet another law that only a lawyer could love.
IMO, the whole thing hinges on the homeowner/occupant being able to prove they believed that the public servant was unlawfully entering their house. This would be made more difficult if attempted posthumously. Under this IN law, if you believe that state or local LE is unlawfully entering your residence, you can:
A. Defend your home with the force you deem necessary. This will be answered by LE using the force they deem necessary to secure the domicile and take you into custody. I see this as either you and several LE being seriously injured or killed, and/or a barricade situation.
or
B. You surrender to LE upon entry. Upon learning that they have entered your domicile unlawfully, you engage an attorney who sues the jurisdiction and the individual officers. All of this happens after any evidence LE seemingly finds while in your domicile is excluded from any criminal proceedings against you.
When and where you choose to prove that LE has entered your home unlawfully is up to you. As for me and mine, we would rather do that in a courtroom in front of a judge, magistrate or jury rather than trading lead with well armed police officers.
Just as a reminder, IN (and any other state law) is not binding on federal law enforcement. If a BATFE agent (or DEA, or Dept of Education, etc...) comes through an Indiana resident's door tonight, and that resident shoots the agent, believing they have entered their house unlawfully, the resident will be charged in a federal court by federal prosecutors. The federal government does not submit to state laws and has not for over 150 years.
Be safe.
lowspeed_highdrag
06-12-2012, 14:11
I wholeheartedly agree with this law, and I am flabbergasted and impressed that a government organization not only admitted that they can and are wrong, but also that a citizens home is his castle and even the government has no right to violate that illegaly. They then went one step further and said that the life of a law abiding citizen is more important than that of a government agent who is violating the law. I am impressed, surprised, and feeling a little giddy. Needless to say, our forefathers would be impressed as well.
But, I will say this. To those who believe they can engage in a shooting war with an agent entering your home illegally and come out the winner, you are sadly mistaken. If you are not killed or wounded by fire, you will be destroyed financially by the legal action they take against you, the court and lawyer fees to defend yourself against the cover up that WILL take place, and the stress of 5-10 years of constant litigation. Even if you win the case and are exonerated, you wont be the same man you were the day before they illegally no-knocked you. Im not saying not to defend yourself, Im just saying be mentally prepared for the consequences of every action you take. Its all about priorities, and if your priority is the safety and well being of you and your family, then there will be consequences.
lowspeed_highdrag
06-12-2012, 14:14
That is completely false. Police are not just going to start shooting if they see a gun. They deal with people having guns a lot more than private Joe's. If you are holding a gun, follow their orders precisely, they will take it away from you with no fire being exchanged. They will then figure out that they royally f-ed up and are not in the right place. Going rambo against the cops because you have a duty to protect your family is not the right answer. Hell, I hope that the cops come unlawfully enter my home. Maybe they will hit me with a taser while they are in there! Then I can land a fat law suit and never work another day in my life....because being a cop sucks!
There's a dead Marine who would disagree with your statement if only he could....
... being a cop sucks!
It pays the bills and sucks less than working at McDonalds [ROFL1]
US History is replete with examples of what happens when you shoot at government employees. Most people think of Waco and Ruby Ridge, but I prefer the Whiskey Rebellion and Fort Sumter.
Be safe.
There's a dead Marine who would disagree with your statement if only he could....
Well I can't speak either way on that one because I was not there. What you are describing sounds like poor training for whoever shot him or he was acting in a way that portrayed a threat to the officer that shot him. Once again I was not there so I can speak with no authority. I can; however, say that it is wrong to generalize that the police in general will start shooting if they see a gun when entering a home. Every cop is a person just like those that are not. There is no way to be certain. But as stated above flexing your muscles and escalating things to a lethal level because the police entered your home unlawfully will never yield good results for either side.
Zundfolge
06-12-2012, 14:28
That is completely false. Police are not just going to start shooting if they see a gun. They deal with people having guns a lot more than private Joe's. If you are holding a gun, follow their orders precisely, they will take it away from you with no fire being exchanged. They will then figure out that they royally f-ed up and are not in the right place. Going rambo against the cops because you have a duty to protect your family is not the right answer. Hell, I hope that the cops come unlawfully enter my home. Maybe they will hit me with a taser while they are in there! Then I can land a fat law suit and never work another day in my life....because being a cop sucks!
There's a HUGE difference between "having a gun" and "pointing a gun at officers".
You kick in my door I'll be POINTING my gun at you (and pulling the trigger), not simply standing there casually with it at my side waiting for you to produce a warrant.
Cop sees someone aiming a gun at them especially after they've geared up/psyched up for a dynamic entry raid in the middle of the night and the person with the gun will be shot. Probably repeatedly. Likely fatally.
As for "going rambo against the cops because you have a duty to protect your family" ... I'm not "going rambo against the cops" I'm "going rambo against the criminals pretending to be cops that just kicked my door in to rob me" because like I said before, statistical probability of them being criminals is significantly higher than of them being cops at the wrong house.
There's a HUGE difference between "having a gun" and "pointing a gun at officers".
You kick in my door I'll be POINTING my gun at you (and pulling the trigger), not simply standing there casually with it at my side waiting for you to produce a warrant.
Cop sees someone aiming a gun at them especially after they've geared up/psyched up for a dynamic entry raid in the middle of the night and the person with the gun will be shot. Probably repeatedly. Likely fatally.
As for "going rambo against the cops because you have a duty to protect your family" ... I'm not "going rambo against the cops" I'm "going rambo against the criminals pretending to be cops that just kicked my door in to rob me" because like I said before, statistical probability of them being criminals is significantly higher than of them being cops at the wrong house.
That's the beauty of America, you do it how you feel is best.
There's a HUGE difference between "having a gun" and "pointing a gun at officers".
You kick in my door I'll be POINTING my gun at you (and pulling the trigger), not simply standing there casually with it at my side waiting for you to produce a warrant.
Cop sees someone aiming a gun at them especially after they've geared up/psyched up for a dynamic entry raid in the middle of the night and the person with the gun will be shot. Probably repeatedly. Likely fatally.
As for "going rambo against the cops because you have a duty to protect your family" ... I'm not "going rambo against the cops" I'm "going rambo against the criminals pretending to be cops that just kicked my door in to rob me" because like I said before, statistical probability of them being criminals is significantly higher than of them being cops at the wrong house.
so true
I wholeheartedly agree with this law, and I am flabbergasted and impressed that a government organization not only admitted that they can and are wrong, but also that a citizens home is his castle and even the government has no right to violate that illegaly. They then went one step further and said that the life of a law abiding citizen is more important than that of a government agent who is violating the law. I am impressed, surprised, and feeling a little giddy. Needless to say, our forefathers would be impressed as well.
But, I will say this. To those who believe they can engage in a shooting war with an agent entering your home illegally and come out the winner, you are sadly mistaken. If you are not killed or wounded by fire, you will be destroyed financially by the legal action they take against you, the court and lawyer fees to defend yourself against the cover up that WILL take place, and the stress of 5-10 years of constant litigation. Even if you win the case and are exonerated, you wont be the same man you were the day before they illegally no-knocked you. Im not saying not to defend yourself, Im just saying be mentally prepared for the consequences of every action you take. Its all about priorities, and if your priority is the safety and well being of you and your family, then there will be consequences.
Let's not forget that even if you are exonerated and all that good stuff there is a high chance that you might want to move out of that jurisdiction and never come back- cops hold grudges, you kill or wrong one of their brothers and they will hold it against you for the rest of your life (or a very long time)... been there, done that, and it was just a complaint, but I still look over my shoulder when I go through certain jurisdictions... slip up once in the wrong place and you'll have hell to pay.
Now, I'm in the camp that states if someone knocks down my door there is a very very very good chance it's not LE but criminals. If they yell police I guess that's something I have to take situation by situation. I honestly believe that no-knocks should require a lot more boxes to be checked before being undertaken than they currently are. If I get into a spat with my neighbor, and he knows I have guns, I don't want him saying I'm cooking meth or something in my apartment and one day have a battering ram tear my door off its hinges.
flan7211
06-12-2012, 15:23
All the LEO's I know support this law. The day of no knocks for non emergency's should be at an end. No reason for the police to go STASI if they don't need to.
68Charger
06-12-2012, 15:49
US History is replete with examples of what happens when you shoot at government employees. Most people think of Waco and Ruby Ridge, but I prefer the Whiskey Rebellion and Fort Sumter.
agreed- but the public has short term memories- so, they remember the more recent events.
Like many other laws related to firearms, there is much anxiety that it will lead to a return of the "Wild West" with shootouts in the street on a daily basis (got news for you, it wasn't even like that in the "Wild West"- only the way Hollyweird portrays it.)
When I read the law, it seems that it doesn't really change what a jury would decide if, in the unlikely event a corrupt officer attacked a person and they defended themselves, would find in a court...(if that person survived to go to trial)
It simply spells out that public servants are NOT ABOVE THE LAW.
I believe the law was intended to never be tested, it's intended to send that message. But I could be wrong...
Mitch Daniels - “After close inspection, I have decided to sign Senate Enrolled Act 1. Contrary to some impressions, the bill strengthens the protection of Indiana law enforcement officers by narrowing the situations in which someone would be justified in using force against them” Daniels wrote in a prepared statement. “Senate Enrolled Act 1 puts into place a two-part test before a person can use deadly force against a law enforcement officer: First, it clarifies and restates the current requirement that a person reasonably believe the law enforcement officer is acting unlawfully. Second, it adds that the force must be reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the citizen. This second requirement is not part of the current law.”
http://www.wbez.org/story/daniels-signs-police-entry-law-97521
Like many other laws related to firearms, there is much anxiety that it will lead to a return of the "Wild West" with shootouts in the street on a daily basis (got news for you, it wasn't even like that in the "Wild West"- only the way Hollyweird portrays it.)
I just had to address this...
THANK YOU!
I'm so tired of people thinking the wild west is a bad example of how "everyone carrying guns will end badly." The murder rate of today (nationally) is much higher than that of the west- per capita figures. So everyone walking around with a gun on their hip is not really all that bad, if you look at the "Wild West" era you will actually see that cops were more relaxed because they didn't really have to work as hard... ie: commit a violent crime and you're probably going to be shot by a bystander before the Sheriff even knows something happened. [Beer]
/hijack. Sorry folks, just had to cheers 68Charger for the historical accuracy.
I don't want to touch this one. Them LEO's work it packs and you mess with 1 there are others that I am sure will come after you at some point.
I think this law may make intel and making sure they have done their homework better.
No more bust in Oops wrong address, sorry, we are outa here, sorry to upset your family, give your grandpaw a heart attack, we shot your dog, etc, etc. and by the way your door is fucked, better get it fixed.
spqrzilla
06-12-2012, 20:00
This was the law already in Indiana until a state Supreme Court decision overturned it. The legislation just overrides the court decision.
While I have the utmost respect for the boys in blue, an unlawful entry is an unlawful entry and should be met with the same measure of deadly force that anyone else would get.
this.
just like the crackhead or drunken idiot that thought he was entering HIS home but decided to enter mine.
That is completely false. Police are not just going to start shooting if they see a gun. They deal with people having guns a lot more than private Joe's. If you are holding a gun, follow their orders precisely, they will take it away from you with no fire being exchanged. They will then figure out that they royally f-ed up and are not in the right place. Going rambo against the cops because you have a duty to protect your family is not the right answer. Hell, I hope that the cops come unlawfully enter my home. Maybe they will hit me with a taser while they are in there! Then I can land a fat law suit and never work another day in my life....because being a cop sucks!
then why do they just shoot dogs that are barking?
Well I can't speak either way on that one because I was not there. What you are describing sounds like poor training for whoever shot him or he was acting in a way that portrayed a threat to the officer that shot him. Once again I was not there so I can speak with no authority. I can; however, say that it is wrong to generalize that the police in general will start shooting if they see a gun when entering a home. Every cop is a person just like those that are not. There is no way to be certain. But as stated above flexing your muscles and escalating things to a lethal level because the police entered your home unlawfully will never yield good results for either side.
would you not agree then that you have not the authority to generalize if the police would NOT shoot?
All the LEO's I know support this law. The day of no knocks for non emergency's should be at an end. No reason for the police to go STASI if they don't need to.
I agree with this as well. I see no point for the officers lives to be risked or the inhabitants lives to be risked over drugs or warrants etc. If there is a hostage situation or something to that extent I can see the need to enter the residence.
The Indiana law applies to police who unlawfully enter a home.
In the event of a "raid" there is better than a 95% probability that a valid warrant had been issued for that address. Even if the address is incorrect, if it matches the address on the warrant and has been signed by a judge it is still legal.
HOWEVER, in some areas of our country the rights of citizens are neither respected or protected and in those areas it is not uncommon for police to conduct illegal searches, which can include entering and searching a home without a warrant or kicking down a citizen's door for suspicion of a minor offense (the odor of marijuana is frequently cited).
If a policeman takes it upon himself to kick in a citizen's door without a valid search or arrest warrant, I believe that is only permissible in the case of an emergency or if the officer is in pursuit of a fleeing felon who he saw enter the residence. Police need a damn good reason to legally kick in a door without a warrant. In the event police enter a home unlawfully, they usually do it on their own initiative without backup and know full well what they are doing is unauthorized. That makes them criminals.
Here in Denver I have not heard any cases of this occurring.
OneGuy67
06-13-2012, 08:49
then why do they just shoot dogs that are barking?
Generally, it is not because the dog is barking, but because it is posing a threat. I can tell you from my experience that it is a difficult decision to make.
I am a dog lover and prefer dogs to most people. I recently had a situation where we were executing an arrest warrant ($500,000 bond) on a suspect and I was assigned to the rear of the residence in the event he attempted to flee. I began walking around the side of the residence in the dark when I hear a low growling. I shine my light on a dog house to the side of me and a pit bull getting up out of it. The dog didn't have a collar and wasn't secured by anything.
I could hear at the front door they were in contact with the suspect and I told the dog "Good doggie" and began to slowly back up out of the yard with the dog following me and growling. He stopped at the edge of the back yard and watched me, while I left the property to make sure my pants were unsoiled.
In this situation, everything turned out okay. But I always worry/wonder what would have happened if the suspect took off from the back and I had to chase him and the dog decided to chase me. I wouldn't want to hurt the dog, but I don't want to get tore up either.
would you not agree then that you have not the authority to generalize if the police would NOT shoot?
I do agree with that. As I stated the police are just people as well. Every person perceives differently, has different levels of training, different levels of experience, different levels of skill, their personalities are different. Not to mention all of these things change on a daily basis.
Regarding the dog issue, not long ago we had an officer get attacked by two pitts, I mean ATTACKED. They started going to town on his legs. He had serious gashes and bite marks on his legs. He was trying to get away but they kept pursuing him. They got him down onto his knees and started jumping at his face. He drew down and killed them both. The homeowner sued him for killing her "beloved babies".
I fail to see how this is news or why every state hasn't adopted such a law. Unlawful is unlawful. Something like this requires LE to have their t's crossed and their i's dotted before proceeding to kick someone's door in. Might make them think twice if a given warrant or situation even necessitates it which most don't anyway. It's time a little bit of power be returned to The People.
While I have the utmost respect for the boys in blue, an unlawful entry is an unlawful entry and should be met with the same measure of deadly force that anyone else would get.
^^^ Yep. Come in my house using unwarranted force to gain entry...be prepared to be carried out in a body bag, regardless of what you are wearing or capacity you hold.
^^^ Yep. Come in my house using unwarranted force to gain entry...be prepared to be carried out in a body bag, regardless of what you are wearing or capacity you hold.
Just as long as you are also prepared to go out the same way. If the police come into your home they will not be alone, as stated above they run in packs. Chances are that a tactical entry team will be deployed. If you shoot at the cops you may hit one or two of them before you realize that it's the police but by that time you are DRT.
HBARleatherneck
06-14-2012, 09:57
delete
i know fear is what motivates people. and you are using fear in this case, to say if you try to protect yourself in your home, you will be killed.
I am certainly not using fear to motivate anyone. I condone protecting yourself and your property. I am just tired of tough guy talk online where people are saying f*ck the cops and no matter what if you come into my house and I didn't know about it you are going down. People just need to realize that it's one thing to type about how they are going to light the police up for unlawfully entering their home. Do they realize the emotional issues they may have by doing that? Would they feel guilty? That's all I'm saying, just consider the results of your actions and if your plan is morally okay, legally okay, and is okay with your family then by all means go for it.
Just as long as you are also prepared to go out the same way. If the police come into your home they will not be alone, as stated above they run in packs. Chances are that a tactical entry team will be deployed. If you shoot at the cops you may hit one or two of them before you realize that it's the police but by that time you are DRT.
I think it's funny that when I started carrying a firearm I saw it as an increased responsibility. I now can take a life so I go OUT OF MY WAY to avoid situations that could present that scenario. Why is it that LE seems to think having more training, weapons and armor means they can create MORE of these situations? Seems counter intuitive to me. I can see doing this for proper reasons which are few and far between all the actual scenarios which make me angry that they over-use them. Every time they do this there's a chance for lost life on either side so you would think this would make them use this as a last resort. Using this tactic for someone growing some pot is just plain stupid IMO.
HBARleatherneck
06-14-2012, 10:28
delete
shooting the cops Or ANYONE else for coming into your house uninvited, will be a life changing event. emotionally, physically, financially, legally, etc. Its not something to be made light of. Even IF you were in the right. You probably wont feel right after the smoke settles.
That is precisely my point. Well said.
shooting the cops Or ANYONE else, will be a life changing event. emotionally, physically, financially, legally, etc. Its not something to be made light of. Even IF you were in the right. You probably wont feel right after the smoke settles.
Believe me when I tell you, the thoughts of the event, will allways be with you.
I don't think anyone is arguing that point. That doesn't change anything I've said here. You can say the same thing in a thread about an active shooter scenario in a mall and it probably wouldn't change anyone's reaction to an incident like that. If it's an unlawful entry into your home you have the right to protect yourself from anyone and everyone. I bet those in the power to conduct such raids in Indiana will think twice about if it's worth it or not now. That's all this law creates is some pause to make sure they really are doing the right thing and if they are that they are triple checking all their facts to make sure no mistakes are made as they can't be afforded when lives are on the line. Accountability.
BushMasterBoy
06-14-2012, 10:55
I guess we have to make our houses fortresses. Steel cages around our doors and windows that require explosives to breach. Here is a good platform for up & coming politicians, "Vote for me! I will protect you from the government!"
I guess we have to make our houses fortresses. Steel cages around our doors and windows that require explosives to breach. Here is a good platform for up & coming politicians, "Vote for me! I will protect you from the government!"
If you do that then you clearly have something to hide. I was at a citizen academy for our county and during one class we were discussing drug houses and warrants and such. The question came up from someone in the class about how you could spot a drug house in your neighborhood. They were going over some of the signs (and presenting them as if each one condemned you as a drug dealer) and he brought up surveillance cameras. He asked the class who had them and I was in the back corner that night and raised my hand. He started to say 'See, none of you do so if you see them those are dug dealers' type thing but as he was saying his statement he glanced over to see my hand raised. Caught off guard he clarified 'You have security cameras watching your front porch and front of your house?' to which I replied 'I sure do.' and he seemed surprised by this. He instead decided to continue on with his other 'facts' to tell the aging hippie soccer moms who asked the question what to look out for.
The point is... you would be amazed what is passed off in LE circles as 'facts' when it comes to such things. You put bars, heavy duty locks/hinges and cameras on your house and you're now a target because you clearly have something to hide. This isn't science fiction either.
HBARleatherneck
06-14-2012, 11:06
delete
i hope i wont be labeled as a criminal now. I just bought another house and I am going to install all the things you mentioned. at least I dont have a dog.
You will. It amazes me how some of the LEO's who've been doing it for decades think and those are the ones training the new recruits how to think about situations. I think if the average citizen knew how easily they were labeled potential criminals these days they would be less inclined to sign away their freedom & liberties to these people.
You will. It amazes me how some of the LEO's who've been doing it for decades think and those are the ones training the new recruits how to think about situations. I think if the average citizen knew how easily they were labeled potential criminals these days they would be less inclined to sign away their freedom & liberties to these people.
There was a time, in my youth, when I was interested in getting on the Sheriff's department here in Jefferson County. All the guys I networked with and made friends with pretty much proved something to me (and kinda turned me off to the idea of pursuing that career): Cops, after a time, see things very differently from the way non-LEOs see things. For instance, you see a kid sitting at a bus stop with headphones on, baggy clothes, and a general "urban" appearance and think he's just a kid, albeit not a very well dressed one, but you usually (generalizing here) don't think he's a hoodlum. A police officer will see the same kid and think (again, generalizing) he's up to no good. And I understand this, they deal with the worst in people and see so much negativity so often that they have to be more guarded. Like my deputy friend told me back in high school with regards to profiling and the reason cops usually assume based on appearance: "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably a duck."
not necessarily
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57352718/one-cop-dead-5-hurt-in-utah-drug-raid-shootout/
this guy killed one cop and wounded 5 others and he is alive and well.
"The suspect in the shooting is at a local hospital under guard, with non-life threatening injuries." Quoted from the story listed above. I can only speak for myself, but being in the hospital under guard is not my idea of alive and well. Alive yes, but not well.
Here is a link to some further stories about this issue involving the suspect; Matthew David Stewart.
http://www.deseretnews.com/topics/2268/Matthew-David-Stewart.html
I will offer this, there is much more to this story than a police raid gone bad.
The people of this country have a right to be secure in their person and property. The Fourth Amendment authorizes the government to search and seize after a warrant has been issued by a judge and supported by probable cause. If people are going to make the point that the government never has the right to search or seize, under any circumstance, then I am going to point out that you have not read or understood the Constitution.
As for the reason LE are searching, that is based on whatever particular laws they are empowered, by the legislature and executive (elected by the people) to investigate and enforce.
As for the civilian academy issue; I would say that having surveillance cameras on your front door may be an indicator of criminal activity. Certainly that alone is not probable cause. Also, if you have 9' fences around your property, topped with barbed wire or concertina wire, and vicious dogs with their vocal cords removed roaming your property, and welded cages over doors and windows on your residence, I would say those are indicators that you have something inside your dwelling that you are trying to protect or keep people away from. These are indicators, not probable cause that some criminal activity is taking place. If surveillance on this same residence shows that over a week long period, twenty known felons, all with previous convictions for trafficking in controlled substances come and go with some regularity, I would say we are inching our way toward probable cause, but not quite there. Through some diligent police work, I am able to get a hand to hand buy on three occasions (two of them surreptitiously recorded) with the occupant of this same dwelling, I would now present my investigative results to a magistrate and apply for a search warrant for the residence, and an arrest warrant for the person who sold me the (laboratory tested) controlled substance purchased on the three previous occasions.
Since the occupants of the said dwelling showed me the weapons they had inside and joked about shooting the first MF'er coming through the door, a tactical decision would need to be made on how we plan to serve the legally issued warrants. What I can say about this "hypothetical" situation is, some dogs may die. At least one door and fence will be probably be destroyed and several windows will probably be yanked out of their sills. Flash bangs and gas may be deployed, and the neighborhood might be better after all is said and done. Of course, the tactical decision may be made that a barricade will be place around the location, and the occupants will be required to surrender themselves to the authorities.
I can say that most cops see these raids the way soldiers see combat. They may not like it, but this is the job they signed on for. Afraid, but resolute, they are doing what they believe is right to make their jurisdiction safer for the rest of us. Hold the police accountable, but cut them a little slack. Not every cop is a jack booted thug, just itching to come crashing through your front door.
Typing on the internet is easy. Life is different.
Be safe.
"The suspect in the shooting is at a local hospital under guard, with non-life threatening injuries." Quoted from the story listed above. I can only speak for myself, but being in the hospital under guard is not my idea of alive and well. Alive yes, but not well.
Here is a link to some further stories about this issue involving the suspect; Matthew David Stewart.
http://www.deseretnews.com/topics/2268/Matthew-David-Stewart.html
I will offer this, there is much more to this story than a police raid gone bad.
The people of this country have a right to be secure in their person and property. The Fourth Amendment authorizes the government to search and seize after a warrant has been issued by a judge and supported by probable cause. If people are going to make the point that the government never has the right to search or seize, under any circumstance, then I am going to point out that you have not read or understood the Constitution.
As for the reason LE are searching, that is based on whatever particular laws they are empowered, by the legislature and executive (elected by the people) to investigate and enforce.
As for the civilian academy issue; I would say that having surveillance cameras on your front door may be an indicator of criminal activity. Certainly that alone is not probable cause. Also, if you have 9' fences around your property, topped with barbed wire or concertina wire, and vicious dogs with their vocal cords removed roaming your property, and welded cages over doors and windows on your residence, I would say those are indicators that you have something inside your dwelling that you are trying to protect or keep people away from. These are indicators, not probable cause that some criminal activity is taking place. If surveillance on this same residence shows that over a week long period, twenty known felons, all with previous convictions for trafficking in controlled substances come and go with some regularity, I would say we are inching our way toward probable cause, but not quite there. Through some diligent police work, I am able to get a hand to hand buy on three occasions (two of them surreptitiously recorded) with the occupant of this same dwelling, I would now present my investigative results to a magistrate and apply for a search warrant for the residence, and an arrest warrant for the person who sold me the (laboratory tested) controlled substance purchased on the three previous occasions.
Since the occupants of the said dwelling showed me the weapons they had inside and joked about shooting the first MF'er coming through the door, a tactical decision would need to be made on how we plan to serve the legally issued warrants. What I can say about this "hypothetical" situation is, some dogs may die. At least one door and fence will be probably be destroyed and several windows will probably be yanked out of their sills. Flash bangs and gas may be deployed, and the neighborhood might be better after all is said and done. Of course, the tactical decision may be made that a barricade will be place around the location, and the occupants will be required to surrender themselves to the authorities.
I can say that most cops see these raids the way soldiers see combat. They may not like it, but this is the job they signed on for. Afraid, but resolute, they are doing what they believe is right to make their jurisdiction safer for the rest of us. Hold the police accountable, but cut them a little slack. Not every cop is a jack booted thug, just itching to come crashing through your front door.
Typing on the internet is easy. Life is different.
Be safe.
Let me preface this post by saying that I support LE and am generally the first one to defend them when they are unfairly attacked on internet forums or even in real life.
My question to you would be concerning the part I made bold above as it is the direct correlation between if and then. Why does someone who wishes to protect himself, his family or his belongings automatically become a person of interest or suspect at best? At what point did taking responsibility for your own life and possessions become an act of only a known criminal? Why are we now criminalizing those who don't live in a fantasy land where all their concerns are fielded by magical LEOs who are on-site at a moments notice with all the answers? This seems overzealous to a logical thinking and law abiding citizen such as myself and further draws the distinction between 'us' and 'them' which isn't good for either party. This is where I start to have a problem with these raids because the line between known convicted dangerous violent criminal posing an imminent threat and 'suspected pot grower' or 'delinquent tax payer' has become blurred and the next distinction is when people such as myself become labeled 'terrorist' because of my continuous questioning of our leaders as I feel is my duty as a citizen of this nation or even something as simple as a post on Facebook or a firearm purchase.
I also don't want to seem like I'm claiming all LE is 'jack booted thugs' but lots of the people who make the decisions as to what they do seem to be from my personal experiences and the connections I've made within various law enforcement agencies over the years.
HBARleatherneck
06-14-2012, 12:14
delete
Can we get an admin to change the name of this thread to "Bitch about the Cops" please?
Can we get an admin to change the name of this thread to "Bitch about the Cops" please?
Who's doing that? Are you? The rest of us are having an intelligent adult conversation. How dare we say something not 100% shining the balls of everyone or we're cop-haters?
I ain't bitching about no poh-lice but there are a lot of generalizations flying around here about the police just licking their chops to bust people's doors down and that cops are profiling people based on what their house looks like. Just saying cut the dudes some slack. Any cops I've dealt with have been fine. I'm not saying there aren't bad ones but they have a tough job and they keep society somewhat in tact.
IMO, because most of what I type here is just that, my personal opinion; right minded citizens should entrust their personal safety and that of their family and loved ones to no one else. A man is responsible for those he loves.
This means that you take responsibility to provide for them as best you can. You provide safety from those who would harm them. You do the best you can do to give them an environment where they can flourish and be productive members of society.
Sometimes this responsibility takes the form of arming yourself and facing those who would see you and your family as prey. Sometimes this means laying down your life to protect those you love. Sometimes this can mean laying down your arms so that those you love are not subjected to cross fire or collateral damage from government agents, who will not stop while executing their mission to enforce the law.
Each of us have to make that decision for ourselves. No one else can tell another man what is right or wrong. All we are doing is sharing opinions.
I don't like every law I've enforced. I haven't liked every elected official I've protected. My oath of office had no stipulation for what my likes and dislikes are or are not on any given day. I, like many members of this board, have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, enforce the laws of the federal government, and obey the leaders who have been appointed over me. Yes, some of those leaders have been criminals. Some of them have actually been tried, convicted and sentenced to jail terms. This does not change my personal obligation to use my brain, and my conscience to conduct myself in accordance with the oath I have sworn before God.
Based on more than 20 years in law enforcement, I do not consider myself to be in the minority or a rarity in LE. Many of those who wear a badge have also worn a uniform and served on foreign shores defending the same nation they now serve in our communities.
Some cops are bad. This happens in all professions. When cops go bad, no one wants rid of them more than I do or the thousands of others in the profession who place their lives into our fellow officer's hands.
Hold cops accountable. I just ask that everyone try to withhold judgment on all of these incidents for just a few days. At least wait until the almost always incorrect initial story has had time to work it's way through the flawed and biased news media.
I don't believe that anyone on this board is calling anyone names over these types of incidents. We are all just expressing our opinions. Free speech is good. I am glad we have this type of forum to discuss our opinions.
Be safe.
OneGuy67
06-14-2012, 13:30
IMO, because most of what I type here is just that, my personal opinion; right minded citizens should entrust their personal safety and that of their family and loved ones to no one else. A man is responsible for those he loves.
This means that you take responsibility to provide for them as best you can. You provide safety from those who would harm them. You do the best you can do to give them an environment where they can flourish and be productive members of society.
Sometimes this responsibility takes the form of arming yourself and facing those who would see you and your family as prey. Sometimes this means laying down your life to protect those you love. Sometimes this can mean laying down your arms so that those you love are not subjected to cross fire or collateral damage from government agents, who will not stop while executing their mission to enforce the law.
Each of us have to make that decision for ourselves. No one else can tell another man what is right or wrong. All we are doing is sharing opinions.
I don't like every law I've enforced. I haven't liked every elected official I've protected. My oath of office had no stipulation for what my likes and dislikes are or are not on any given day. I, like many members of this board, have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, enforce the laws of the federal government, and obey the leaders who have been appointed over me. Yes, some of those leaders have been criminals. Some of them have actually been tried, convicted and sentenced to jail terms. This does not change my personal obligation to use my brain, and my conscience to conduct myself in accordance with the oath I have sworn before God.
Based on more than 20 years in law enforcement, I do not consider myself to be in the minority or a rarity in LE. Many of those who wear a badge have also worn a uniform and served on foreign shores defending the same nation they now serve in our communities.
Some cops are bad. This happens in all professions. When cops go bad, no one wants rid of them more than I do or the thousands of others in the profession who place their lives into our fellow officer's hands.
Hold cops accountable. I just ask that everyone try to withhold judgment on all of these incidents for just a few days. At least wait until the almost always incorrect initial story has had time to work it's way through the flawed and biased news media.
I don't believe that anyone on this board is calling anyone names over these types of incidents. We are all just expressing our opinions. Free speech is good. I am glad we have this type of forum to discuss our opinions.
Be safe.
+1 to you CStone. You said it better than I ever could have.
Cstone, I won't quote the whole paragraph where you stated how "in a perfect world" that's how LE would obtain a warrant, because we all know sometimes they don't get proof beyond a doubt that illegal activity is being done at or inside a home, but I fault not the LEOs, but their superiors and the judge responsible for issuance of the warrant. I agree with the pretty much unanimous idea that no-knock raids should have a pretty extensive list of needs to check off before it can be preformed, and then of course check the address, then go back and re-check. Of course mistakes can be made from time to time, but I think every law enforcement agency in our nation should always remember "Innocent until proven guilty" and go on that assumption at all times until that little bell goes off that actually does prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your suspects are doing wrong.
I'm in no way bashing cops (not all, there are a few I've dealt with that are actually no good), but in my experience, some of them do not uphold that mantra of "innocent until proven guilty." This is something I think agencies should work on, because I've seen it, especially in Evergreen, growing up some of the deputies acted like you being under 30 pretty much meant you were up to no good. I appreciate the LEOs who resist that cynicism.
OneGuy67
06-14-2012, 15:20
Cstone, I won't quote the whole paragraph where you stated how "in a perfect world" that's how LE would obtain a warrant, because we all know sometimes they don't get proof beyond a doubt that illegal activity is being done at or inside a home, but I fault not the LEOs, but their superiors and the judge responsible for issuance of the warrant. I agree with the pretty much unanimous idea that no-knock raids should have a pretty extensive list of needs to check off before it can be preformed, and then of course check the address, then go back and re-check. Of course mistakes can be made from time to time, but I think every law enforcement agency in our nation should always remember "Innocent until proven guilty" and go on that assumption at all times until that little bell goes off that actually does prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your suspects are doing wrong.
He never said anything about "a perfect world"; he never even used those words. He did provide a pretty straightforward example of how a LEO would look at the totality of the information and circumstances and how one might work that information. A
Additionally, where do you get the "because we all know" garbage? How the hell would you know? You read all the arrest and search warrants sworn out there in Jeffco or elsewhere for their completeness or truthfullness? You read internet forums? How do you know this? The threshold for a warrant isn't "proof beyond a doubt", its probable cause.
I guess the general consensus of the uninformed is that there are a ton of no-knock warrants are being signed off and done every day here in Colorado. That isn't true. The vast majority of search warrants being issued are "knock and announce" warrants.
He never said anything about "a perfect world"; he never even used those words. He did provide a pretty straightforward example of how a LEO would look at the totality of the information and circumstances and how one might work that information. A
Additionally, where do you get the "because we all know" garbage? How the hell would you know? You read all the arrest and search warrants sworn out there in Jeffco or elsewhere for their completeness or truthfullness? You read internet forums? How do you know this? The threshold for a warrant isn't "proof beyond a doubt", its probable cause.
I guess the general consensus of the uninformed is that there are a ton of no-knock warrants are being signed off and done every day here in Colorado. That isn't true. The vast majority of search warrants being issued are "knock and announce" warrants.
Woah, easy tiger. I'm just saying, there are the few occasions where police obtain a warrant based on baseless, false, or otherwise wrong information, and they either A) Raid the wrong property than was intended, B) Raid a property under false pretenses or information, or C) make a mistake. I'm not saying it's common, hell it happens very seldomly, but I have read where there have been cases where people lost their lives because of wrong or mistaken information that led to a raid. Those facts are brought up in "Drug War Addiction" by Sheriff Bill Masters... I'm just simply saying that there should be a pretty big list of conditions that need to be met before obtaining a no-knock warrant (I don't know if there already is, if so, great). My whole point is that I just think that "collateral damage" with regard to LE is avoidable and should be treated as unacceptable.
OneGuy67
06-14-2012, 16:02
Woah, easy tiger. I'm just saying, there are the few occasions where police obtain a warrant based on baseless, false, or otherwise wrong information, and they either A) Raid the wrong property than was intended, B) Raid a property under false pretenses or information, or C) make a mistake. I'm not saying it's common, hell it happens very seldomly, but I have read where there have been cases where people lost their lives because of wrong or mistaken information that led to a raid. Those facts are brought up in "Drug War Addiction" by Sheriff Bill Masters... I'm just simply saying that there should be a pretty big list of conditions that need to be met before obtaining a no-knock warrant (I don't know if there already is, if so, great). My whole point is that I just think that "collateral damage" with regard to LE is avoidable and should be treated as unacceptable.
Those search warrants that go bad are usually the leading story of the evening news and they are few and far between. Literally thousands of search warrants are executed daily with no issues, but like all sensationalistic things, the ones that go bad are front page news.
Masters isn't really an authority in this arena; he has worked in Telluride all his life and while a hippy area, not really a hot bed of drug use or enforcement.
LEO's look at risk all day, each and every day. There are risk matrix's regarding the use of tactical teams, the execution of warrants, the making of a traffic stop.
Those search warrants that go bad are usually the leading story of the evening news and they are few and far between. Literally thousands of search warrants are executed daily with no issues, but like all sensationalistic things, the ones that go bad are front page news.
Masters isn't really an authority in this arena; he has worked in Telluride all his life and while a hippy area, not really a hot bed of drug use or enforcement.
LEO's look at risk all day, each and every day. There are risk matrix's regarding the use of tactical teams, the execution of warrants, the making of a traffic stop.
I suggest you read his book though, he pulls from his experience and then also from friends (I assume there is a decoder ring and secret handshake between LEOs? [Tooth]). But yes, one point he did clarify is that they are very very rare, but the point he made was that regardless of rarity, they still happen and it's all because the drug war. I appreciate the risks any uniformed service takes day in day out- different ball game, but I grew up in a firefighter family and always feared for my dad's safety when he went on a structure fire call.
Bottom line: Stay safe out there. I hate seeing the one bad apple cop give the rest a bad rep. Or in the case for up here, the rookies who think they're South District LAPD when in fact they're county mounties in a mountain town with an almost non-existent crime rate.
OneGuy67
06-14-2012, 16:20
I suggest you read his book though, he pulls from his experience and then also from friends (I assume there is a decoder ring and secret handshake between LEOs? [Tooth]). But yes, one point he did clarify is that they are very very rare, but the point he made was that regardless of rarity, they still happen and it's all because the drug war. I appreciate the risks any uniformed service takes day in day out- different ball game, but I grew up in a firefighter family and always feared for my dad's safety when he went on a structure fire call.
Bottom line: Stay safe out there. I hate seeing the one bad apple cop give the rest a bad rep. Or in the case for up here, the rookies who think they're South District LAPD when in fact they're county mounties in a mountain town with an almost non-existent crime rate.
Here is the issue to his book and the reason I won't bother to read it. He wrote it in 2000 and it was published in 2001. The laws have changed since then concerning asset forfeiture, which is the main crux of his argument; that LEO agencies seize assets and use the forfeiture money to fund their agencies and thus, more drug seizure means more money. Can't do that anymore. You literally have to get a fed agency involved and have them do the seizure and forfeiture and then they would do a split with the agency. Those thresholds are VERY high to get a fed agency involved as the AUSA's aren't going to prosecute a simple possession of any drug.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.