I’d call that completely ass-backwards. As representatives of the law, granted extraordinary powers to uphold the law, it is even more important that they follow the law themselves.
It’s the same reason there are specific laws against impersonating a police officer: because you cannot reasonably expect people to cooperate with police if they cannot trust the police.
By definition, this is not the case in the situation (illegal entry) stipulated in the OP.
Right. The end point of Hamlet’s logic is Nixon’s: it’s not illegal if the President does it.
Well, it’s the only way these abuses are going to stop.
Unless cops are dying, they won’t stop. They don’t give a shit that some innocent guy lost his life because of their incompetence. Everytime this happens, they go into cover our asses mode. And the vast majority fo the time, all the people responsible get, is a vacation on tax payer’s dime.
If cops started to die because of their incompetence, or the incompetence of their leadership, you cna bet your ass immediate changes to policy would be made.
Instead of the prevailing, “Hell yeah, let’s raid that house!” attitude, you’d have people asking question like: is some dude smoking a joint enough to justify going in there rambo style? Or let’s first try to defuse the situation, rather than escalate, Or, you know, even evaluate more basic things like: is this the right mother effing address?
Again, I agree. Law enforcement, if they abuse their power, can be held to a higher standard. But the price of when they make a mistake shouldn’t be a death sentence.
This is part of the problem I see with the view of too many posters on the SDMB. They see any police mistake as deliberate, willful, and with malice. That’s simply not what happens in a vast majority of cases.
Police can, and in a vast majority of cases do, make an illegal entry without any of those things. Police officers who serve faulty warrants shouldn’t face death as a penalty for shoddy work. Police officers who think they have exigent circumstances to enter a house should not face shooting because they were wrong. In a vast majority of cases, it’s confusing caselaw, misunderstanding of the law, and just plain mistakes that lead to “illegal entries”, not some kind of malice intended to harm a homeowner.
I wasn’t even going to respond to this little gem of shitty logic, vast overreach and mind-numbing stupidity, but I’ve found in these kinds of threads that anything not refuted is simply repeated and assumed to be true. It shouldn’t need saying, but you are completely and utterly wrong.
So basically you’re saying that you want to encourage people to kill cops as a means of bringing about social reform.
Is that about right?
OK, I don’t think we’re too far off each other’s argument.
I think this breaks down into 2 scenarios. Scenario one is just bursting into a house. That by itself justifies self defense and whether or not it’s law enforcement is irrelevant. Scenario 2 is the attempt at entering a house, announced, without a warrant. This violates basic constitutional rights and at that point if the person says no to a search then no means no.
because the majority of the cases I’ve ever read about favor the actions of the police.
There is a legal area that could be discussed but that’s not what this thread is about is it? If officers meant to search my neighbor’s house and they kick my door in screaming like crazy people then I’m going to defend myself with whatever is close at hand. That is basic self defense.
Maybe I watch too much TV but there seems to be a lot of incidences where guns are drawn without any threats made. On top of that there seems to be an inability to converse with officers once they draw a gun.
But to answer your question, I think it should be decided in court rather than a shoot out. But as it stands now we, the people, don’t have any laws that favor a court solution. That is why I suggested a law where a citizen can make a citizen’s arrest and surrender to arrest at the same time. Kick my door down by mistake or without a warrant and threaten my life then I want payment for the door and compensation for violation of my civil rights.
So what did you mean by “extra protection”?
Should police officers who mount an illegal armed invasion of an innocent citizen’s home be subject to the same penalties as anyone else committing this crime, or greater, or lesser?
Wait a minute, who gets to decide if the invasion is illegal? You make it legal to shoot cops for an illegal search, and I promise that someone’s going to shoot a cop because the warrant was issued in a court that had the Admirality flag. That is a can of worms nobody should open. The cops should be subject to criminal and civil penalties, but after they have properly identified themselves no shooting allowed.
The problem I see, and that has always bothered me, is with the identification. On all the COPS type shows that I’ve watched, they make entry as quick as possible. Basically, they yell “Police” once and bust open the door.
If I’m sound asleep in my house, or maybe not even, I don’t know that I’d recognize their notice for what it was.
Good to hear.
I think there are more than two scenarios. But I think the issue isn’t dividing into scenarios, it’s deciding how to deal with individual factual cases. And, in making those decisions, I would rather it be made by the police, judges, and prosecutors than a homeowner with a gun and no patience.
As long as you understand that “cases I’ve ever read” isn’t a very valid way of reaching the conclusion that police are immune from their bad actions, we’re good. I will simply point out that, under the law, police are not immune from their bad actions. I will also point out that not every bad action by police should result in them being shot.
If the police make a mistake, you should be allowed to kill them? That strikes me as a bit extreme.
If you know they are police officers, even if you think they are making a mistake, the best thing for everyone is to not shoot them. Sue the fuck out of them, sure. File criminal charges? Great. Get them fired? Awesome, you go. But shooting them shouldn’t be an option. Because it will likely end a lot worse for you, for them, and for everyone involved.
But even beyond the common sense, I don’t think the law should allow someone to knowingly kill a police officer, even if that police officer is making a mistake.
We agree. The time, place, and method to resolve the issue of wrongful entry is in a court of law, not with guns at the house. By having a law that allows home owners to shoot police because they think the entry is illegal, they’re increasing the likelihood of more dead homeowners, more dead police officers, and a lot more animosity and tension.
There’s also the fact that they’re* all* yelling out of synch and it blurs what’s being yelled.
A wide variety of things. Being allowed to speed, break into houses (with a warrant), being able to buy drugs, increased sentencing, and a whole host of different ways that police officers/teachers/postal workers, etc are protected by the law.
If their actions knowingly break a criminal law, they should suffer greater penalties than a normal person because they’re not just committing a crime, they’re doing it under the color of law. But, again, we’re talking about extremely rare incidents, and the same problems (as Bill Door pointed out, with deciding who, where, and how the decisions should be made.
You can argue the “should” until the cows come home; the universe disagrees about the “is”:
[QUOTE=“Lazarus Long” (Robert A. Heinlein)]
Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can’t help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Magiver]
I think this breaks down into 2 scenarios. Scenario one is just bursting into a house. That by itself justifies self defense and whether or not it’s law enforcement is irrelevant. Scenario 2 is the attempt at entering a house, announced, without a warrant. This violates basic constitutional rights and at that point if the person says no to a search then no means no.
[/QUOTE]
But what about exigent circumstances, such as a case where the individuals in the house are believed to have kidnapped a small child and the child may be in immediate danger? Or some sort of terrorist operation that have kidnapped someone for the purpose of killing that person? Are the police in your opinion always required to announce themselves at the door if they don’t have a warrant?
Sometimes the tactical element of surprise may be essential to saving a life; whether the warrantless, unannounced search is constitutional will depend on the facts of the case, what the police knew, and how high the risk to life was. That assessment should be made after the emotions of the moment have calmed down, by an impartial judge.
One of the reasons that they scream “POLICE!!!” over and over and why they wear jackets that say “POLICE”, is to avoid mistakes. The problem with the Indiana law is that a person can know that these people are police and shoot them if the person thinks they (ETA: the police) made a mistake.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
That is why I suggested a law where a citizen can make a citizen’s arrest and surrender to arrest at the same time. Kick my door down by mistake or without a warrant and threaten my life then I want payment for the door and compensation for violation of my civil rights.
[/QUOTE]
You already have that right; you don’t need to arrest anyone one. If you think the police have violated your constitutional rights, you have a right to bring a civil action under federal law (§ 1983). If the court rules in your favour, you get compensation.
Is there a point, or should I just walk away slowly?
I disagree. There is a substantial number of cases where “mistakes were made” and nothing happens. They thought they saw a gun. The court cases decidedly favor the police and not those attacked. I don’t really see the concern for the police over that of the citizen.
I don’t see self defense as extreme at all.
well now we’re in the same arena of mistakes. The difference is that a person at home should have the reasonable expectation of defending that space. The person charged with responsibility of breaching the law in this discussion are the police and they should be held liable for the outcome of a false arrest.
The law should allow for the lawful defense of one’s home against anyone illegally attempting to enter it by force. A badge shouldn’t hold any legal status above the law. At this point you’re arguing Castle Laws and you are free to disagree with them as a POV.
that would take laws providing for such actions. As it stands now courts overwhelmingly support the actions of police. AFAIK if there isn’t a warrant then everything bad that happens should focus back on those responsible for authorizing the action. Just as if a driver involved in a bank robbery is responsible for anyone injured or killed in the crime.