State Passes Law to Legalize Shooting Police

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aimed (sorry) at unannounced 4 AM raids on the wrong house? This might make a few overzealous officers double check the house number and street name before breaking down the door. Too many of these lately.
 
Isn't this about a year old?

Besides, we already have the 100+ year old John Bad Elk v. U.S. Supreme Court ruling, which has not been overturned. (although it didn't help Cory Maye much)
 
cowtownup said:
Just caught first wind of this a little while ago.... Interested in others opinions...

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/sta...efense-police/
A seriously misleading article which misunderstands the law.

Before anyone gets too excited he needs to reflect that he better be right about the LEO's conduct being unlawful. He's not going to get a pass if he's mistaken, even if the mistake was reasonable.

So --

  • How well versed are you on the real life, applicable law of search, seizure and arrest?

  • Are you absolutely sure that you will be correct that an LEO's use of force is unlawful?

  • Are you absolutely sure that you will be correct that an LEO's entry upon a person's property is unlawful? Are you aware that the courts recognize that under certain circumstances and based on an LEO's reasonable perceptions an entry without a warrant is lawful?

  • Are you absolutely sure that you will be correct that an LEO's interference with or seizure of one's person or one's property is unlawful? Are you aware that the courts recognize that under certain circumstances and based on an LEO's reasonable perceptions a search or seizure without a warrant is lawful?

  • If you use force against an LEO and it turns out the the LEO's conduct was lawful, you will most likely be going to jail for a long time.
 
^^^How true.
The big issue here seems to be the application of no-knock warrant service, with the likely scenario of the police going to the wrong address, or acting on bad information. A properly designed and implemented layered security plan should be adequate in at least slowing down most uninvited visitors. During the attempted penetration of the first/second layer, the occupants should have adequate time to learn the identity and purpose of the entry.
 
Do you guys remember Henry McGee, the man accused of shooting and killing a deputy Sheriff a few months ago. McGee was asleep on the couch when Deputies Smashed down his door serving a (Legal)No-Knock warrant. McGee did not know they were cops and in fear for his life opened fire killing one deputy.

Well, it appears that Mr McGee was justified in killing the NO-Knock deputy, because the Grand Jury refused to indict.

http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/...led-by-Grand-Jury-243993261.html?device=phone
 
Whether the Police search warrant and actions are legal or not is determined later in a Court of Law, not at the time of the search.

Resisting the actions or orders of the Police while on the streets (i.e. outside the courtroom) is very risky and usually ill advised.

Strangely enough his defense actually makes sense to me. Drug dealers always live with the real danger that other deal dealers or users will try to steal his dope and money. While it is possible the dealer will flush his stash (although not possible with marijuana operations) when police announce their identity before crashing the door this incident sadly underscores the danger of "no-knock" warrants.
 
Last edited:
Most criminals obviously don't believe that the police are acting in the right, so it'll always be considered "illegal" in the eyes of the criminal being investigated.

Also, many people believe that a "no knock" search warrant entry means that the police just break down the door and start ordering people on the ground at gunpoint. For the most part that's true, but a no knock warrant just means they don't stand at the door and wait for the occupant to answer. It means they break the door open and quickly secure the building. In both situations though, police still identify themselves loud and clear and multiple times before making entry.
 
Old subject....

This topic has come up before here & in other gun/tactics forums.
In short, I highly doubt any sworn LE agency will stand by & let you or any other armed citizen shoot a officer then not react or use lethal force.

In central FL, a group of sheriff's deputies went to the wrong house at around 130/230am. The home owner answered the door(armed) & asked what they were doing. The deputies saw the firearm, shot & killed the armed citizen, then realized they were at the wrong location. :eek:
The family of the victim filed a wrongful death action & pushed it in the local media.
The sheriff & FDLE(the state agency that investigates LE shootings) both cleared the deputies of wrong-doing using the "officer safety" excuse.
Even the original subject had all of his criminal charges cut & the entire case closed. :rolleyes:

These events do happen. PDs & local governments have to pay out $$$ to cover these mistakes. A state law or local ordinance is not going to change that.
 
[*]If you use force against an LEO and it turns out the the LEO's conduct was lawful, you will most likely be going to jail for a long time.[/list]

I think it is a LOT more likely that if you "use force" against an LEO you are going to be DRT (Dead raight thar) ... the "legal" niceties will be moot at that point.
 
Settlements....

I disagree.
I can find or know of examples of local PDs/sworn LE agencies that cut deals or reached legal settlements over wrongful death actions.
Do some PDs or city governments get off? Sure.
But not all PDs or sworn LE officers get away with misconduct or unlawful use of force.
In central Florida, a group of narcotics deputies shot at a subject a reported 157 times(5.56mm, .45acp). The sheriff(Orange County, www.OCSO.com ) cleared the sworn deputies & detectives of wrong-doing. The agency & the deputies paid the subject's family off with a special fund set up by the Florida Sheriffs Assoc.
Civil law firms & litigators know they can cash in with nearly any lethal force event that involves a sworn LE agency.
 
I'm thinking here.

Many of these no knock raids are for drugs.

If some of these PDs stopped being lazy, and did actual surveillance and police work as opposed to taking the word of a confidential informant, there wouldn't be such a high number of "oops wrong house" incidents.

I'm willing to bet more than one judge has signed off on a bogus raid due to terrible information from a CI.

Just a thought and a theory.

Of course this SWAT going to the wrong house may be blown out of proportion.
 
You still run into the issue that no-knock warrants are rarely carried out by one or two cops. But instead by heavily armed teams. So what? You'll take down one or two. The rest will just react. In the end you and your dog are still dead.
If you shoot a cop, the rest aren't gonna just say "Damn, I think this is the wrong house. We should appologize and leave peacefully"

So I like the symbolism behind the law. But from a practical standpoint it would have been better to enact procedures that make extra sure you're not kicking down the wrong door. And HEFTY penalties for the cops who do not follow those procedures. Penalties that are actually ENFORCED.
 
Danger; officer safety.....

I agree with the posted remarks today but you also need to keep in mind the safety & risk management/risk mitigation issues of the sworn officers(agents).
They need to have proper training & weapons/equipment but they can't be risk adverse or lax either. :uhoh:

Last year(2013) on another forum I heard & saw a Miami Florida area news story of a drug raid that turned into a massive gun fight.
It started when drug agents approached a front porch of house at the start of a narcotics operation. A armed subject rose up from the interior of a parked vehicle & started shooting. :eek:
The hapless cops spun around & engaged the subject shooting at him from different angles. The house CCTV/security DV cameras recorded the incident.

Could the drug agents used better tactics or methods? Yes.
But the incident shows how fast a raid or warrant service can go sideways.
 
Isn't this about a year old?

Besides, we already have the 100+ year old John Bad Elk v. U.S. Supreme Court ruling, which has not been overturned. (although it didn't help Cory Maye much)
Actually it's closer to two. That law was the answer to a court case that the citizen had only court remedies if an LEO entered &/or destroyed property illegally. It was decided that officer safety trumped the citizen being secure in their homes, person and papers.

There was enough public indignation that the Indiana congress passed this law preserving the right of the sanctity of the home. While the indignation was peaceful, to the representatives POV it was quite frightening.
 
I'm thinking here.

Many of these no knock raids are for drugs.

If some of these PDs stopped being lazy, and did actual surveillance and police work as opposed to taking the word of a confidential informant, there wouldn't be such a high number of "oops wrong house" incidents.
If they bust the kingpin on the street or he/his buddies at the local bar, they won't get to keep all the ill-gotten goodies at the crime scene for themselves ;)

Of course this SWAT going to the wrong house may be blown out of proportion.
Seeing as there's more SWAT operations, doing more routine high-intensity ingress operations, against a stronger-than-ever drug industry, I don't see how it possibly could be. Proportion aside, it's quite obvious it is going to get worse before it gets better. And unlike mass shootings, no knock raids are something we can actually control.

I think it is a LOT more likely that if you "use force" against an LEO you are going to be DRT (Dead raight thar) ... the "legal" niceties will be moot at that point.
Both sides will have sought cover after a few seconds, so it is still possible for the non-LEO to give himself up. If the police insist on taking then-illegal action in retribution for their screw-up, well, that's what survivors' lawsuits are for.

These events do happen. PDs & local governments have to pay out $$$ to cover these mistakes. A state law or local ordinance is not going to change that.
A change in tactics sure would. There's a reason we don't have high speed pursuits as a matter of course anymore, nor full-speed blow throughs of intersections except in absolute emergencies. I keep hearing the canard of "officer safety" thrown up as the justification for these raids, but I don't see how sending a squad of guys in battle dress on an offensive operation to single-handedly escalate the situation to the level of lethal force could possibly be done in the name of officer safety. Not when there is sufficient time to get a warrant (i.e. time to find a less insane means of executing the search). A no-knock is pretty much the most dangerous thing an officer can knowingly go into, so wouldn't the preference be to avoid them if at all possible?

The real justification has always been prevention of evidence destruction, because it's a lot easier to prosecute someone with a bag of pot in-hand for the jury. There's no question the element of surprise makes the investigator's job far easier, but that can also be said for pretty much every other questionable/illegal police tactic that's been discarded as immoral. We've even seen examples of raids on meth-labs timed to coincide with the big sale so those dollars can be seized; never mind the fact that it's also when volatile chemicals tend to be present in the process. If they are worried about 'drugs being flushed' as the refrain goes, shut off water to the building before the raid --duh. If the amount is small enough to be flushed, is it really worth a lethal-force situation in the first place?

As violent and risky to both officers and inhabitants as a no-knock is, I've never understood how there is not a "necessary to reduce likely risk to life and limb" type requirement for them, which would place some burden on the officers to show the tactic was necessary for risk aversion if things go badly. It would relegate them to emergency-type serious situations where dangers like condition zero automatic weapons, teargas, and concussion grenades would actually be justified. If police are worried of being shot through the door when they announce (reasonable), I don't see why they could not do a remote-knock while entering elsewhere.

I just don't understand how someone --gangbanger, saint, or average Joe-- can be expected to not react to defend his life when storm ninjas burst into his room unannounced. Does it really even matter if they are cops, terrorists, gang members, or thieves? Beyond some point of violent urgency it's not even a legal issue, and more a human rights dilemma (reflexively acting to defend your life when ambushed; if you can't legislate morality, I doubt you can legislate survival instinct). The enemy is whoever is going to get you killed, after all.

There is no cause, whatsoever, for there to be one shred of lawsuit immunity for departments in cases of mistaken addresses. We used to have these things called 'investigators' who'd do 'stake outs' and 'due diligence' to make sure they nabbed the right guys. After all, what happens to the precious flushable evidence if the criminal next door hears SWAT crashing through with flashbangs? A group so incompetent as to raid 6G instead of 6F deserves to have a large chunk of its operating resources taken away in lawsuit, and be severely chastised by the city council when they go begging to have it replenished.

TCB
 
If they bust the kingpin on the street or he/his buddies at the local bar, they won't get to keep all the ill-gotten goodies at the crime scene for themselves ;)


Seeing as there's more SWAT operations, doing more routine high-intensity ingress operations, against a stronger-than-ever drug industry, I don't see how it possibly could be. Proportion aside, it's quite obvious it is going to get worse before it gets better. And unlike mass shootings, no knock raids are something we can actually control.


Both sides will have sought cover after a few seconds, so it is still possible for the non-LEO to give himself up. If the police insist on taking then-illegal action in retribution for their screw-up, well, that's what survivors' lawsuits are for.


A change in tactics sure would. There's a reason we don't have high speed pursuits as a matter of course anymore, nor full-speed blow throughs of intersections except in absolute emergencies. I keep hearing the canard of "officer safety" thrown up as the justification for these raids, but I don't see how sending a squad of guys in battle dress on an offensive operation to single-handedly escalate the situation to the level of lethal force could possibly be done in the name of officer safety. Not when there is sufficient time to get a warrant (i.e. time to find a less insane means of executing the search). A no-knock is pretty much the most dangerous thing an officer can knowingly go into, so wouldn't the preference be to avoid them if at all possible?

The real justification has always been prevention of evidence destruction, because it's a lot easier to prosecute someone with a bag of pot in-hand for the jury. There's no question the element of surprise makes the investigator's job far easier, but that can also be said for pretty much every other questionable/illegal police tactic that's been discarded as immoral. We've even seen examples of raids on meth-labs timed to coincide with the big sale so those dollars can be seized; never mind the fact that it's also when volatile chemicals tend to be present in the process. If they are worried about 'drugs being flushed' as the refrain goes, shut off water to the building before the raid --duh. If the amount is small enough to be flushed, is it really worth a lethal-force situation in the first place?

As violent and risky to both officers and inhabitants as a no-knock is, I've never understood how there is not a "necessary to reduce likely risk to life and limb" type requirement for them, which would place some burden on the officers to show the tactic was necessary for risk aversion if things go badly. It would relegate them to emergency-type serious situations where dangers like condition zero automatic weapons, teargas, and concussion grenades would actually be justified. If police are worried of being shot through the door when they announce (reasonable), I don't see why they could not do a remote-knock while entering elsewhere.

I just don't understand how someone --gangbanger, saint, or average Joe-- can be expected to not react to defend his life when storm ninjas burst into his room unannounced. Does it really even matter if they are cops, terrorists, gang members, or thieves? Beyond some point of violent urgency it's not even a legal issue, and more a human rights dilemma (reflexively acting to defend your life when ambushed; if you can't legislate morality, I doubt you can legislate survival instinct). The enemy is whoever is going to get you killed, after all.

There is no cause, whatsoever, for there to be one shred of lawsuit immunity for departments in cases of mistaken addresses. We used to have these things called 'investigators' who'd do 'stake outs' and 'due diligence' to make sure they nabbed the right guys. After all, what happens to the precious flushable evidence if the criminal next door hears SWAT crashing through with flashbangs? A group so incompetent as to raid 6G instead of 6F deserves to have a large chunk of its operating resources taken away in lawsuit, and be severely chastised by the city council when they go begging to have it replenished.

TCB
Any money that gets paid out should come from the cops pensions who were involved. But a simpler way is to disband 90% of SWAT teams and make no knock or any entries illegal. No one gets killed. Easier to arrest the guy when he is getting gas then house can be searched.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top