Activists' home invaded by police. How would you act?

[JimmerJammerMrK]

Furthermore reading the whole story it sounds like the folks who hung the flag are also two waves short of a ship wreck.

Why, because their political party affiliation is opposite yours?

 

[Fred Fuller]

Be all that as it may- in this case the county sheriff has now requested that ALL charges be dropped.

Draw what lessons you can from all the tears and flapdoodle so far, but it's best in situations of this nature to not make things worse. In other words, when someone says "We can sort all this out downtown," you should hasten to agree with them. You can indeed sort it all out downtown. And if you need to make sure it doesn't happen again, you will be in a better position to carry the issue forward if you don't have a raft of other charges to contend with brought about by your ill-considered reaction to the encounter.

Somehow it strikes me that it would not be a bad idea for officers to make it clear what their intentions are as they deal with situations like this, but in today's world that might be too much to ask.

lpl/nc

 

[Deanimator]

Deanimator; I understand and agree with how you feel on this issue. It boils down to how much you're willing to pay. Taking the high road costs a lot of money in legal fees, which most people don't have. Their lawyer, likely on contingency, will only do so much for them. If they fail to take settlement, the lawyer will pull out and send them a bill. Some people, perhaps you, have the financial wherewithall to push it all the way to the supreme court. It's my (thankfully indirect) experience, that once it's heading to civil court, it's all about the money. The principle gets left far behind, probably at the first doorway into the attorney's office.

I'm willing to pay EVERYTHING I have. In a situation like Norfolk or the murder of Michael Pleasance, I'd sell everything I own. I'd sell my own blood. But I guarantee you there would be a reckoning, and the pain wouldn't be solely that of the taxpayers. How does soaking them deter bad behavior? They didn't falsely arrest Chet or shoot Michael Pleasance. Take a pittance settlement from YOURSELF as a taxpayer and all the city does is raise taxes.

If you want to discourage bad behavior, you go after the people engaging in it, not the taxpayer. If Chet from the Norfolk incident goes after the individual cops who abused him and wins, I guarantee you that Norfolk will have to go outside the solar system to find somebody dumb enough to enforce a similar preempted law next time. The police union in Cleveland has already defied the Mayor's order to continue enforcing Cleveland's preempted assault weapon ban. They must have better sense, or at least better lawyers, than the union in Norfolk.

At the very least, if Norfolk attempts to settle with Chet, he needs to demand [and not compromise on that demand] the firing of the officers who abused him. Again, that ensures that next time nobody's going to fall on their sword for a city administration that sells them up the river.

But it all depends upon whether you're after money or justice. You know where I stand on the matter.

 

[fireflyfather]

It's actualy looking more like he placed them under arrest on the porch and they retreated into the house. You can't use the fact that an officer was all scary and smashing in your door as an excuse for running into the house because that hadn't happened yet. Yes, this is assuming that the news media is getting the facts progressively more accurate as more of the story comes out, but it's probably a valid assumption.

True. However, I didn't imply that they retreated bcause he bashed in a window, I just suggested that he was unbalanced enough to do so. When dealing with people who are mentally ill or keyed up in a rage, you can usually tell before they actually commit an act of violence that they are likely to in the immediate future. Perhaps I phrased it poorly, but what I'm saying is that if you have a guy with a gun foaming at the mouth in front of you, it may be reasonable to assume that he means you some harm. Unless we know how the officer was acting (so far we only have anecdotal testimony from neighbors and the homeowners) there is no way to know if he was physically threatening. Also, if the officer hasn't TOLD YOU that you are being charged with something, you shouldn't have to provide ID. We don't know if he told them they were being arrested/charged/etc. You have to identify yourself, that doesn't mean that you have to show ID, unless you are being charged. No?

1. It doesn't matter if the charge has been held up in local courts or not. What matters is whether any such law has been decided by the SCOTUS. If he had been trying to arrest someone because there was an ancient law against black people registering to vote on the books
(and that SPECIFIC law hadn't been tested by the supremes), I don't think that anyone here would be suggesting to black voters that they shouldn't retreat into their own homes and call 911 if someone tried to arrest/charge them while foaming at the mouth. Again, if you are violating someone's civil rights in an aggressive manner, don't just expect them to sit there and comply with gestapo railroading. I'm not advocating violent disobedience. I am suggesting that unless you have been EXPLICITLY TOLD that you are being detained, which I doubt these people were, then the officer has no right to follow you into your home. I mean hell, if I'm walking up to my house, and a cop tries to start a fishing expedition/questioning session over something that MIGHT be a crime (not whether or not I committed a specific crime, but whether or not what I did was a crime) and tries to prevent me from entering my property without detaining me, that's just silly.

This whole episode took place on their property, right?

2. If this was legit, why didn't he wait for backup before bashing down their door? He was obviously in some sort of aggressive mindset.

ETA:
After re-reading the original article, the officer threatened them with arrest if they DIDN'T take the flag down. So they took the flag down, and then he was going to charge them anyway? Yeah, real reasonable man of his word. Nice. Plus the cop lied about breaking down the door. In fact, he never told them why they were arrested until they arrived at the jail.

 

[Coronach]

1. I agree that we have no idea how reasonable either side was. Absent some proof- or even an assertion- to the contrary, I'm not prepared to believe that the officer was so frightening/intimidating/threatening/unprofessional that it makes flight from an arrest reasonable. Could it have happened that way? Sure, but that's generally a poor way to wager your money. We'll see...if that's the case, I'm sure that will be asserted by the defense at trial (or the plaintiffs in the civil suit). Heck, even if it's not, I'm sure it will be.

2. We also have no information about how clearly "arrest" was articulated to them (either via words or actions). That will also come out at trial. I would caution you about using the details of the newsblurbs to try to ascertain such things, however. Frequently such details are not given to the media, and they don't think to ask, and even if they are, they're not reported properly. We, literally, know zero about what was said or done on the porch.

3. It does, in fact, matter whether there has been local caselaw supporting the law in question. Courts frequently have rulings contrary to each other, and sometimes contrary to SCOTUS precedent if there is some reason to think that the issue in question falls outside of the scope of the SCOTUS decision in question. Eventually it will all get sorted out when an appeal goes up, but you can end up with contradictory holdings until then. I'm no expert on 1st amedment law in general or the caselaw of the state in question, but I think they whole issue is not as black and white as everyone is making it out to be.

4. As to why he didn't wait for backup, there are multiple reasons. First off, you lose the fresh pursuit exception to the warrant requirement if you wait. Second off, if there is one of him and two doors to the house (or, windows), you can lose your subject. Third, it gives people time to make preparations for when the police do force entry pursuant to warrant. That last one can be majorly bad. ASSUMING I was making an arrest in this case (and believe me, that's a major assumption), I would not wait. The door goes shut, the door comes open, and I go inside. Arrest made, problem solved. As far as 'coaxing' goes, I'm inclined to think that someone who was outside, got told they were being arrested and ran inside, is unlikely to come out in order to be arrested if we just chat a while longer. I'm all for negotiations in the proper situation, but this doesn't strike me as one of them.

Mike

 

[brerrabbit]

The most applicable USSC decision to this case is Spence v. Washington.

The decision is posted here.

http://www.esquilax.com/flag/spence.html

Amazingly similar to this case.

From the decision.

We are also unable to affirm the judgment below on the ground that the State may have desired to protect the sensibilities of passersby. "It is firmly settled that under our Constitution the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers." Street v. New York, supra, at 592. Moreover, appellant did not impose his ideas upon a captive audience. Anyone who might have been offended could easily have avoided the display. See Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971). Nor may appellant be punished for failing to show proper respect for our national emblem. Street v. New York, supra, at 593; Board of Education v. Barnette, supra.

Coranach

Counterpoints.

1. There were witnesses other than the victims to the deputy's aggression. As he was not acting in a lawful role, their word carries as much weight as anyone who is a witness to a crime.

2.Unless he actually told them they were under arrest, they were not under arrest. Second off, the deputy had no lawful power to arrest them for this act in the first place. This will come up in the civil trial that is sure to follow.

3. Yes, lower courts frequently make decisions contrary to supreme court decisions. But they are often overturned on appeal unless they can provide a new argument that stands. This decision has yet to be overturned or even challenged at the supreme court level. The logic of the decision is so fundamentally first amendmend based that it will never be overturned while the constitution is in effect.

Yes it is black and white. The activists were performing a protected act.

4.The deputy should have waited for backup. As he was acting unlawfully, he could have legally been killed or wounded by the homeowner upon forcibly entering the home. LEO's do not get a pass on unlawful activities, nor due the protections the enjoy apply any more..

While I would have tried to keep the encounter non-violent. The rules change when my door gets broken down by anyone.

I would not wait. The door goes shut, the door comes open, and I go inside.

If I close my door on someone and that door comes open. The person doing the opening will be staring down at the bore of a 12 guage regardless of a badge.

 

[Coronach]

1. There were witnesses other than the victims to the deputy's aggression. As he was not acting in a lawful role, their word carries as much weight as anyone who is a witness to a crime.

And they will be invaluable to determining exactly what happened...in court.

2.Unless he actually told them they were under arrest, they were not under arrest.

Patently untrue. While it does have the benefit of removing all ambiguity, and in this situation would probably be required due to the reasonable belief that one can go into one's house and shut the door, this is incorrect in the general sense. for instance, if I pull a car over and the driver bolts, I don't have to yell "stop! you're under arrest!" before he gets up into a house. We're trained to do so because it is a very big upside without a downside, but it is not required.

Second off, the deputy had no lawful power to arrest them for this act in the first place. This will come up in the civil trial that is sure to follow.

Quite possibly correct. This is certainly something that will be hashed out ... in court.

3. Yes, lower courts frequently make decisions contrary to supreme court decisions. But they are often overturned on appeal unless they can provide a new argument that stands. This decision has yet to be overturned or even challenged at the supreme court level. The logic of the decision is so fundamentally first amendmend based that it will never be overturned while the constitution is in effect.

Yes it is black and white. The activists were performing a protected act.

We'll see. You very well may be correct. It is still not something that needs to be fought about anyplace but in the courtroom.

4.The deputy should have waited for backup. As he was acting unlawfully, he could have legally been killed or wounded by the homeowner upon forcibly entering the home. LEO's do not get a pass on unlawful activities, nor due the protections the enjoy apply any more.

How would waiting for backup change this? I doubt very highly that you can shoot anyone, LEO or anyone else, merely for breaking into your house. There has to be a reasonable belief that you're about to be physically harmed- harmed, not arrested.

Now, establish a reasonable belief that the LEO is trying to kill you? This is the same as any other home invasion from the point of view of self defense. However, that is far cry from a dispute on the porch and a flight from arrest. If you are afraid for your life, you're afraid for your life. Judged by 12, carried by 6 and all that. If you're not afraid for your life...you shouldn't be shooting anyone.

While I would have tried to keep the encounter non-violent. The rules change when my door gets broken down by anyone.

Actually, they don't. If you're arrested outside and run inside, you're still under arrest. They will come in and get you.

If I close my door on someone and that door comes open. The person doing the opening will be staring down at the bore of a 12 guage regardless of a badge.

And you will go to prison or the morgue, unless you have a much greater provocation that that.

Mike

 

[jaholder1971]

2 points: 1. The homeowners WERE NOT DRIVING. They were on their own property.

Doesn't matter. If you possess a DL you are REQUIRED in most every state to present it when asked by the police. You gave up the right not to when you signed up for it.

2. There is a difference between an officer investigating whether I have contraband, (which is illegal, whether I have it or not), and an officer investigating whether I danced the macarena in a tuxedo last night while reciting anti-cheney poetry in my bathroom (which may be a crime, but sure as hell isn't illegal). In the first case, he was investigating a CRIME, in the second case, he was investigating something he WRONGFULLY BELIEVED TO BE A CRIME (or knew wasn't one, but was trying to strongarm the homeowner into believing was one, so the homeowner would "knock off that flag desecrating *****"), AND IS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED. Big difference.

Wrong. As long as he was investigating what he believed may have been a crime he could have held the two until he was satisfied. This usually depends on the cooperation of the parties involved. The more time the cops has to listen to their bloviating about their rights and the war while making sure they don't scamper off the more time he has to figure out if they really committed a crime.

Generally, you don't run from the cops. That's elementary. BUT, if they are doing you harm, or threatening to do you harm, for wearing your shirt inside out, eating a burrito for dinner, or, heaven forbid, flying a flag upside down with an anti-bush poster on it, you don't have to stand there and let him beat on you. In fact, retreating and calling 911 when someone is UNBALANCED enough to bash in a window is probably a good move. The cop apparently thought that non-violent offenders warranted him IMMEDIATELY bashing in their door/window instead of calling for backup and coaxing them out the way you normally do. A badge is not a license to rough people up because you don't like what their political beliefs are or they don't want to talk to you.

SCOTUS has visited this to the same result: Run from the cops, for any or no reason, and they can pursue you. They dont' have to play nice-nice, either.

These people were itching for a confrontation with the cops and they got what they wanted.

 

[John C]

Deanimator;

Again, I understand and agree with your point of view. Think of it this way; if you're net worth is only like $500k to $1 million, you may not have enough assets to bring a civil rights lawsuit to closure. Any defendant, gov't or not, would be remiss not to assess your ability to go all the way, and formulate their strategy appropriately. Lawsuits are extremely costly. I've been told that it take $10 million to successfully defend a patent from infringement. If you're a big company, you figure out if the patent holder has enough to defend itself. If not, you offer a paltry amount to buy or license the patent. If they play hardball, you infringe and fight it out in court. Generally, the patent holder gets the picture and settles. This happens all the time in high tech.

As Patrick Henry once said: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel."

-John

 

[Coronach]

Wrong. As long as he was investigating what he believed may have been a crime he could have held the two until he was satisfied. This usually depends on the cooperation of the parties involved. The more time the cops has to listen to their bloviating about their rights and the war while making sure they don't scamper off the more time he has to figure out if they really committed a crime.

There is a "reasonable timeframe" requirement involved, and there also is a standard of proof for initiating the detention. They can't just stop anyone and hold them indefinately.

Mike

 

[brerrabbit]

Coranach

Until I am informed I am under arrest or being detained. I am free to go. If the LEO wants to argue different, he can argue it in court later. As far as the USSC protecting flag desecration, not an arguable point. It has been addressed in over ten cases and they all found it to be protected by the constitution.

Now, establish a reasonable belief that the LEO is trying to kill you? This is the same as any other home invasion from the point of view of self defense. However, that is far cry from a dispute on the porch and a flight from arrest. If you are afraid for your life, you're afraid for your life. Judged by 12, carried by 6 and all that. If you're not afraid for your life...you shouldn't be shooting anyone.

Forcible home invasion with the felon armed with a handgun. As soon as he kicked in the door I have reasonable justification for the use of deadly force here.

The LEO was not acting with any authority whatsoever once he pursued an action the he knew or reasonably should have known was unconstitutional. Escalating the situation by breaking into a home at that point is the height of foolishness.

Considering the deputy was not acting under color of law he did not have the authority to make an arrest in the first place, ie resisting arrest charges are invalid as the DA pointed out in the followup story

And you will go to prison or the morgue, unless you have a much greater provocation that that.

Is that your advice on how to respond to all armed home invaders? Castle law would cover it in this state.

Actually, I would go to court and the person breaking down my door goes to the morgue. Considering what the DA said about all the other charges, I am quite sure the same logic applies to shooting a deputy that is acting unlawfully.

Video would make this easier to prove in court. I guess I am going to take some of my old advice and install a cctv system for situations where video evidence would stop prevarication. Primarily to stop some thieves in the area, but the former situation may come up.

 

[Coronach]

Until I am informed I am under arrest or being detained. I am free to go. If the LEO wants to argue different, he can argue it in court later.

He certainly will. There is ample precedent for an arrest being situationally implied and being valid- however, I will agree with you that in most situations where one could converse about it, the "you are under arrest" is well nigh required. Be advised that this is not always the case.

As far as the USSC protecting flag desecration, not an arguable point. It has been addressed in over ten cases and they all found it to be protected by the constitution.

I agree, but my question is what, exactly, does the statute say, is there some angle that would lead them to believe (erroneously or otherwise) that the statute is constitutional, and what training was given to the officers in regards to it. All of that may not matter at all in whether or not the Kuhns are guilty, but it matters quite a bit in how reasonable the actions of the officer were.

Forcible home invasion with the felon armed with a handgun. As soon as he kicked in the door I have reasonable justification for the use of deadly force here.

I strongly encourage you to retain the services of a good lawyer, and ask him this question. I doubt very highly that he will agree with you. The "armed felon" deal is not going to fly in any sitaution in which you don't have a reasonable belief that the officer is trying to physically harm you. The "felon" bit won't fly because the officer is legally entitiled to pursue you into your home to complete an arrest- and just because you think that the original arrest is bogus doesn't make it a home invasion. The armed part is techinically correct, but the reason that you can kill armed intruders is because if someone is breaking into your house with a weapon it is reasonable to believe that they mean you physical harm. Alas, in this instance the "intruder" is legally entitled to be there and the presence of the weapon is explained by the fact that he is a cop there to arrest you. Now, if you have reason to believe he is there to kill you? I think castle doctrine would stand. The key would be the reasonableness of that belief. "Well, we argued on the porch and I said 'screw you' and went inside and he followed me and was armed so I shot him" ain't gonna work. Again, I really urge you to retain legal counsel before you do something silly.

The LEO was not acting with any authority whatsoever once he pursued an action the he knew or reasonably should have known was unconstitutional.

This is an argument for court. And, interestingly enough, it comes back around to my earlier point. If his department trained him that the law was valid and enforceable, his belief in the legality of his actions were perfectly reasonable. The department is negligent and should pay, but the officer (assuming that was the case) is acting in good faith.

Is that your advice on how to respond to all armed home invaders? Castle law would cover it in this state.

Of course not. If you have an unknown person kicking down your door at 3 AM, and you see he is armed with a gun, it's time to shoot him, since your belief that he is there to cause you serious bodily harm is perfectly reasonable. If you just got done telling a cop to get bent and you were not submitting to his arrest on the front porch and he follows you inside, your belief that he is about to cause you serious bodily harm, absent other facts, is not reasonable.

Actually, I would go to court and the person breaking down my door goes to the morgue. Considering what the DA said about all the other charges, I am quite sure the same logic applies to shooting a deputy that is acting unlawfully.

That's a high-stakes gamble, my friend. Especially when you have the option of:

A. Fighting the original charge in court.

or

B. Fighting the original charge in court, along with a homicide charge.

Your decisionmaking doesn't seem to be terribly good. I once again encourage you to retain the services of a good criminal defense attorney. I would reserve force for instances in which you have a reasonable belief you're about to be harmed.

Mike

 

[brerrabbit]

Coranach

I agree, but my question is what, exactly, does the statute say, is there some angle that would lead them to believe (erroneously or otherwise) that the statute is constitutional, and what training was given to the officers in regards to it. All of that may not matter at all in whether or not the Kuhns are guilty, but it matters quite a bit in how reasonable the actions of the officer were.

I am not arguing about the how reasonable the deputy's actions were. He was trying to enforce a blatantly unconstitutional law for personal reasons. As soon as he told them to take down the flag, all his actions were unconstitutional from that point on.

[/QUOTE]The "felon" bit won't fly because the officer is legally entitiled to pursue you into your home to complete an arrest- and just because you think that the original arrest is bogus doesn't make it a home invasion.[/QUOTE]

But when you do not think the arrest is bogus but actually know it, that changes things. When no crime has been committed the LEO does not have the right to chase you inside your home.

Alas, in this instance the "intruder" is legally entitled to be there and the presence of the weapon is explained by the fact that he is a cop there to arrest you. Now, if you have reason to believe he is there to kill you?

Again, the intruder is not legally entitled to be there. He is violating the constitution. All those nice protections LEO enjoy do not apply to him in this situation.

While many of us consider firearms defensive weapons, many of us realize the truth that they are offensive weapons. They do not stop bullets, ball bats etc. If the LEO has his weapon out, which he problably would when busting down the door, I consider that he has it out for a reason. If I point my gun at an LEO would he not have the same belief?

As part of his job, the deputy reasonably should have known the law was unconstitutional. If the LEO in this situation was willing to escalate the illegal situation he created to using firearms I would be willing to do the same. I am not responsible for the deputy's actions, he is.

He was trying to make a political statement just as much as the homeowners were. The only problem is that while the homeowners actions were lawful, the deputy's were not. If he is willing to compound folly with auto-darwinism. that is his issue.

I think castle doctrine would stand. The key would be the reasonableness of that belief. "Well, we argued on the porch and I said 'screw you' and went inside and he followed me and was armed so I shot him" ain't gonna work.

The argument was that if he broke down my door, not simply followed. Two different things entirely.

While it may be arguably a case for the court. It is very arguably a case for not allowing your rights to be trampled, by force if necesarry.

While my decision making may not be very good. Our country was founded by a lot of people that did not make very good decisions about standing up for their rights. Quite a few of them came to bad ends over it also.

 

[Deanimator]

Deanimator;

Again, I understand and agree with your point of view. Think of it this way; if you're net worth is only like $500k to $1 million, you may not have enough assets to bring a civil rights lawsuit to closure. Any defendant, gov't or not, would be remiss not to assess your ability to go all the way, and formulate their strategy appropriately. Lawsuits are extremely costly. I've been told that it take $10 million to successfully defend a patent from infringement. If you're a big company, you figure out if the patent holder has enough to defend itself. If not, you offer a paltry amount to buy or license the patent. If they play hardball, you infringe and fight it out in court. Generally, the patent holder gets the picture and settles. This happens all the time in high tech.

Well, it's like this. Pure meanness counts for a lot in a conflict. If Michael Pleasance were my kid or brother, I'd stand on a streetcorner soliciting contributions if I had to. The nice thing is that there are lawyers who get as offended by these things as I do. You only need ONE. If I'm not mistaken, some of the most important decisions came out of cases involving indigent persons.

 

[DMK]

As to what you do, if the police are forcing their way into your house, the best option is to obey their orders and sort it out in court later. One of two things will happen:

My only problem with this (assuming for the moment that an arrest was not made on the porch and that the officer is the aggressor) is that if someone becomes so enraged as to kick your door down, how can you trust that they will not beat you over the head with their nightstick once you do comply? Is my or my family's physical safety less important than an officer's orders?

I feel that once a professional starts acting in a reckless and unprofessional manor, then they lose the right to all the respect they once deserved due to their office.

Sure the wife called 911, but how long will it be before the cavalry arrive and asses the situation? (I'm sure they will assume the cop is not the aggressor until they see it for themselves)

 

[Coronach]

DMK-

that's the real question, isn't it? And it is very situationally dependent. If you honestly feel that the cop is acting outside of the scope of his duties (not just "I think this arrest is bogus" or "dammit I'm innocent!", but is actually about to break in and commit homicide), all bets are off. You won't live to decide this in court if you don't take action. The stakes, however, are very very very high- you better be right, because no matter what happens, you have entered a world of suck.

Another thing to consider is, realistically, how often does this happen? I mean really. Has it happened? Yes. Could it happen again? Certainly. What are the chances it is actually happening to you, when (in this scenario) you just fled from an arrest? Probably pretty darned small.

Choose wisely.

Brerrabit:

I am not arguing about the how reasonable the deputy's actions were. He was trying to enforce a blatantly unconstitutional law for personal reasons. As soon as he told them to take down the flag, all his actions were unconstitutional from that point on.

This is a wonderful argument for court. You may very well be correct. That doesn't make resisting arrest any more advisable. "I might beat the rap!" You can beat the rap without resisting arrest. All you're doing is making it harder on yourself.

But when you do not think the arrest is bogus but actually know it, that changes things. When no crime has been committed the LEO does not have the right to chase you inside your home.

Newsflash: you don't get to decide if the arrest is bogus or not. That's the courts' job.

Again, the intruder is not legally entitled to be there. He is violating the constitution. All those nice protections LEO enjoy do not apply to him in this situation.

Again, an argument for court.

If the LEO has his weapon out, which he problably would when busting down the door, I consider that he has it out for a reason. If I point my gun at an LEO would he not have the same belief?

Assuming you were fleeing from an arrest, it would be reasonable to assume that the cop had his weapon out in order to overcome potential resistance from you and take you into custody. The inverse is not true.

As part of his job, the deputy reasonably should have known the law was unconstitutional.

Not if he was trained otherwise by his department, or advised otherwise by the legal advisor. In this case the department, as a whole, is cetainly responsible for the infringement of rights, but the actual actor may not be.

If the LEO in this situation was willing to escalate the illegal situation he created to using firearms I would be willing to do the same. I am not responsible for the deputy's actions, he is.

Now here is an interesting logical problem.

You just stated that if the deputy were forcing entry, he most likely had his gun out. So, you understand, and indeed have articulated, that when entry is forced into a structure, the police, as a matter of prudent routine, have weapons at the ready. This is done whenever they force entry into a residence in order to make an arrest on someone who has fled inside. Clearly, you understand this aspect of how LE operates, and so you also understand that when they force entry into a residence to make an arrest, they are not going inside to execute the person who has fled into the house. They're there to take them into custody and deliver them to court.

Your argument is that a use of deadly force by you, if a cop breaks down your door with his gun out, is justified, since you have reason to think that, since he has his gun out, he means you harm. You have just contradicted yourself. On the one hand you state, very plainly, that they always have their guns out of they force entry into a residence to arrest, and on the other you stated that you're in fear of your life, so aiming a shotgun at the cop is justified. Sir, that dog ain't gonna hunt.

I again advise you to seek legal counsel immediately.

The argument was that if he broke down my door, not simply followed. Two different things entirely.

Not really. Forced entry is forced entry, whether it is done via battering ram, boot, or mere authority. By "followed" I implied "pursued into the house", not just wandered in without explicit permission.

While it may be arguably a case for the court. It is very arguably a case for not allowing your rights to be trampled, by force if necesarry.

While my decision making may not be very good. Our country was founded by a lot of people that did not make very good decisions about standing up for their rights. Quite a few of them came to bad ends over it also.

Before you post again, you need to reread the forum rule sticky called "Bloodlust" a the top of this thread. What you are essentially doing is advocating the use of deadly force to resolve a dispute that you know full well does not call for deadly force.

Mike

 

[ilbob]

As part of his job, the deputy reasonably should have known the law was unconstitutional.

Not if he was trained otherwise by his department, or advised otherwise by the legal advisor. In this case the department, as a whole, is cetainly responsible for the infringement of rights, but the actual actor may not be

I thought that ignorance of the law was no excuse. Guess that only applies to us mere citizens.
.

 

[Coronach]

It certainly applies to the department as a whole, as a corporate entity. It often does not apply to individual actors, especially when they have been incorrectly trained by their PD.

Again, this is pure supposition, in reference to this case. The PD might very well have told everyone on its staff that the statute in question is unenforcible. That would put it squarely on the deputy's shoulders.

Mike

 

[hso]

This one started out as a mixture of legal and tactical that was probably more suited to L&P or General.

After all this time it's turned into something that certainly isn't suited to S&T, perhaps not even THR.

This one is closed.