You also be on the ground on your stomach and get shot.
Two things. Firstly, they are not the only crimes for which no-knock warrants are used, and if you think they should be your complaint is with politicians, not the police.
And secondly, you don’t know what the other residents of your house are up to. The most common situation I’ve heard is where parents don’t know their child is a drug dealer.
Police. Uniform.
Warrant.
Cops telling you what to do, not tying you up and raping your wife.
They are fundamentally difference - the only real similarity is forced entry.
Steophan, is part of the issue of your comprehension the way you spell recognize? Do you not fully understand American English?
In Steophan-land, criminals are incapable of getting their own police uniforms. Unfortunately, in the real world, they can and sometimes do.
I fully understand English, and also know how to spell it.
That doesn’t allow you to assume that anyone wearing a uniform is in fact in disguise.
It does mean that one might feel entirely reasonable fear of an imminent danger to their lives when someone breaks down the door, even if they’re wearing a police uniform. If having reasonable fear of imminent danger to their life is the standard for utilizing deadly force, then in such a circumstance the one in fear can shoot in self-defense.
What you replied to there was sarcasm, just incase you felt that I was actually endorsing those views.
So, law abiding civilians are not allowed to defend yourself from home invasions, got it.
Who says that they don’t have permission? Whenever I am throwing a shindig, I always tell my friends to show up in the middle of the night and bust down my door.
Assuming you survive, at least.
Well, now we are getting somewhere, at least. You have stopped insisting that people are not allowed to protect their homes and their families, but that if they are, they need to be prepared for possible legal consequences.
As the cops like to say, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
It is not reasonable to assume that someone who has busted down your door and charged in was being threatening?
That’s probably the stupidest thing you’ve said so far in these exchanges. (Probably, but not definitely, you’ve said some pretty stupid things.)
Yes, you do. Stop lying about it. You want law abiding people to wait until they have verified 100% that the people in their house are criminals before they are allowed to defend themselves.
Don’t all the gun advocates always talk about how you only have seconds to react to a threat?
What exactly would you do? You wake up to the sound of your door being busted down. You hear feet charging up the steps. You know that they will be in your room within seconds, just enough time to get your gun.
Do you really wait until they enter your room and present ID as home invaders before you get your gun?
See, there is where you are having troubles here in strawmanning arguments. I have no problem whatsoever with law abiding cops, I have a problem with cops that break or bend the rules, who cut corners, who put their convenience above that of public safety. And even of those cops, I don’t hate them, I just want to see them off the force, or punished according to fair legal standards if they did things like shooting fleeing suspects or plant evidence, or rape the women who called for them. I have expressed this on several occasions.
You have said specifically that law abiding civilians have no right to defend their home from invaders until they have checked ID’s. This policy of yours will get them killed. Since you want law abiding civilians to be killed, you must have some sort of dislike for them.
Good attempt at the whole tu quoque argument, but it falls on its face when you realize that you are the only one that is advocating for innocent people to be killed.
That would not be a reasonable fear.
And, in Steophan-land, you can tell what someone is wearing when the bust down your front door from your bed.
Doesn’t matter if they are wearing police uniforms or not, how do you tell what they are wearing before they have entered your room?
I’ve repeatedly said the exact opposite. Shoot home invaders. Don’t shoot cops. Stop pretending you can’t tell the difference.
I have repeatedly asked how you can tell the difference.
You refuse to answer, because you know you can’t.
One more time. You are in bed, and you are woken by the sound of your front door being bashed in. You hear people charging into your house, and up the steps. You have only a few seconds before they get to your door, and your daughter’s door is the next one down the hallway. (In this hypothetical, you are a law abiding citizen, with no reason to believe that the cops would have any interest in you.)
Do you get your gun now, or do you wait until you can check their ID’s?
You cannot answer that question, because you would have to contradict one of your strongly held principles.
Evidently not, given that he apparently believes “Police” and"Uniform" to be things that can be reliably detected and distinguished from “Gang-Banger” and “Colors” by sound from another room.
It could be, depending on the circumstances. It’s not reasonable to dismiss this possibility entirely.
And I’ve repeatedly answered. The idea that it needs answering repeatedly is absurd, though I’ll do it again. Look at them. That’s it.
You might want to re-read that first statement. It does not purport to be an exhaustive list of cases for which no-knock warrants are justified, but covers the full gamut (“someone else who may reasonably be the target”) of legitimate cases. Thus, unless you specifically and explicitly wish to defend illegitimate cases, I think we’re done with this line of argument.
Let’s roll the tape and reiterate the scenario under discussion:
I will stipulate that if you are actually Superman, and thus capable of discerning the identity of the intruders while they are still in some other room of your house, you can afford to wait and find out for sure just what their intentions might be. Public policy, however, is designed around the needs of ordinary citizens.
+1
You have still refused to give a straight answer to the specific question of what would you do if your door was broken down, and you hear people charging up the steps to your bedroom.
You claim that “look at them” is an answer, so you have to wait until they have entered your bedroom before arming yourself.
Yeah, your policy is going to get innocent civilians killed. Why do you want that?
There could be a disconnect here. Maybe you have superpowers that you don’t know other people have. Can you see through walls? If you are in your bed, can you see who has just broken down your front door?
If not, then you really are pathetically stupid.
If so, then you need to know two things.
First, not everyone else can see through walls to be able to tell from another room in their house who has broken down their door.
Second, you should go join the police force, as your ability to see through walls would make both their jobs and the public much safer.
I’m physically capable of opening my bedroom door, and also of looking out of the window to see if there’s a cop there, as are the vast majority of people.
Also, I’ve never said don’t get a gun if you don’t know who’s in your house. I’ve said don’t shoot them if they’re police. That subtle difference may have eluded you, but it should be clear now.
The trick is, should you do that, when they say “Police! Drop your weapon” or similar, you do so.
You can take being carried by six, I’ll take being judged by 12 every time.
Now, about that vanishing improbable comment …
Ok, let’s make one point clear. When you are sleeping, your pupils dilate, causing them to be more sensitive to bright lights. There is a condition called flash blindness that causes temporary blindness when the eye is suddenly exposed to a bright light, like say a police flashlight. Flash blindness has a greater effect and a longer duration when your pupils are dilated. So if a home invader, cop or criminal, flashes a bright light in your face, you are physically unable to see that “extremely recognisable uniform.”
It’s not “vanishingly improbable,” it’s the actual science you stubborn motherfucker.