Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Police.

[Jer]

"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/22...d-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]

delete

[T-Giv]

Can we get an admin to change the name of this thread to "Bitch about the Cops" please?

[Jer]

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?

[T-Giv]

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.

[cstone]

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]

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.

[Ronin13]

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]

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.

[Ronin13]

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.