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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it all depends upon a number of facts not in evidence. My main question is, if the statute is unconstitutional, why is it on the books and what training has the PD done to address the issue? As nice as it would be for each and every cop to have an encyclopedic knowledge of nationwide case law, it doesn't happen (hint: lawyers and judges argue this stuff all the time, themselves). His department, however, should have a legal advisor and should do training to address issues like this (for instance, when the courts and state law smacked down my city's assault weapons ban- for the third time, I might add- we got immediate training that the law was invalid, even though city council refused to remove it from the books). Now, if he was trained that the law is unenforceable, and he went there anyway? That's trouble.
Click to expand...
These general concepts are currently in play in the Norfolk PD case.

My take:

1. I consent to NO searches, EVER. I don't use drugs, nor do I keep unlawful items around. I don't associate with known criminals. Unless I feel that my life is in immediate danger, I will not KNOWINGLY resist an unlawful search/arrest by a cop with physical force. However, if somebody kicks in my door without warning, I WILL shoot them barring VERY convincing proof that they're actually the police. I've got a long list of documented anonymous death threats by organized White supremacist groups. I'd rather have to explain why I shot a cop doing an unlawful search or a search at the wrong place, than to have some sheethead on trial for murdering me. "Deanimator safety" trumps all other considerations. Don't get the address wrong when you do a raid. Don't do like the Atlanta cops and make up a "fable". The results will be unpleasant and irreversible.

2. A cop's belief in the legality of a search/arrest must be REASONABLE. If as in the case of the Norfolk cops, the arresting/searching officer KNOWS [or should have known] that the arrest/search was unlawful, I believe that should have [and has] pierced his qualified immunity. Does "ignorance of the law is no defense" apply to everyone or just to non-cops? I've had people tell me that the Norfolk cops can't be held responsible for knowing a multiplicity of laws. If that's true, why can ***I***???

3. In return for not violently resisting his intentional tort/rights violation against me, I reserve the right to hound the offending officer(s) to his grave, using literally every legal tool at my disposal. If as is so often mentioned, retaliation comes into play, that's grounds for additional legal action by me. (See the Abbate case in Chicago) If I physically attack a cop, no cop on earth is going to want to cut me a break, no matter HOW many times I say, "I meant well." Nor will they be amused if I get friends or family to attack that cop in revenge for my being arrested. They'll want me crushed. It's only right to return the favor when police do wrong. I'm a strict liability kind of guy in cases like Norfolk. Excuses about "a difficult job, and "too many laws for the cop to know" will not be viewed sympathetically. Neither will appeals about how the officer's family is effected. If I harm a cop wrongfully, no cop wants to hear about my family. "Additional training" isn't a deterrent to bad behavior. Financially devastating monetary judgements ARE.

Violate my rights while in uniform, it's the law of the [legal] vendetta, no mercy, no do-overs, no pity. It's pound of flesh time.

As I've said elsewhere:

I hate bullies.
I hold grudges.
I have UTTERLY no sense of proportion.

Fair enough?
 
TallPine,

You said:

I am confused as to why you are confused ...?

Does everyone have to fit into one of two extreme left/right categories?

Well, the best I can offer is that often I am easily confused. And, I find it does make things a lot easier to keep up with if people WILL stay in their own neat little boxes where you put them in the first place. 8^)

Actually, I don't think people must fit in necessary places along the political spectrum. Often they do, of course, and often enough they make it evident where they are- but I'm not going around with a hammer and nails trying to fix anyone's feet to the political floor.

But I do find it interesting and intriguing that this couple are Alex Jones listeners who, when a minion of the dreaded New World Order shows up on their porch to take them to task for their patriotic expession of national distress, promptly calls the ACLU for help. Whatever else that is, it's DIFFERENT. Not to mention finding support from a former Bircher in the middle of the whole thing. Not exactly stereotypical, is it?

OBTW, in one of the pictures in the newspaper, they had a Ron Paul campaign poster up too...

lpl/nc
 
I actually have no problems with what Deanimator said, just in case anyone was wondering. I encourage people to avail themselves of all legal options for the redress of grievances like this. The place to resolve such things is in court, and the price of mistakes when so much is on the line ought to be painful.

Mike
 
I actually have no problems with what Deanimator said, just in case anyone was wondering. I encourage people to avail themselves of all legal options for the redress of grievances like this. The place to resolve such things is in court, and the price of mistakes when so much is on the line ought to be painful.
Click to expand...
Sounds fair to me.
 
+1 Deanimator
+1 Coronach

My current "home invasion" plan is to reinforce entries to the house, in hopes that it buys enough time to retreat to the safe room and call 911. If it happens to be a wrong-door raid, hopefully this will suffice to sort everything out (and stand-down my weapons and cower on my belly).

The biggest hole I see in this plan is that reinforced entries will probably mean that the swat team will be good and ticked when they get through to where I am. :what:

--Len.
 
Larry Davis

I can't find much on the net but in the early 1980's Larry Davis got into a shootout with cops breaking down his door in NYC, he got away with shooting at cops!
Last I heard he was in jail for different charges.

As far as what would I do if a cop is violating the law and breaking into my house???

I would call the police!
 
1. You'll find out your understanding of the law/situation was wrong, the police had the legal authority to do what they did, and you just avoided making the situation a lot worse by resisting arrest, obstructing justice, or interfering with the arrest of another.

or

2. The cops were wrong, and you and your lawyer are about to get a nice chunk of change from the city.

We're a civilized nation. When anyone violates the law- police or citizen- the place to sort it all out is in court, not on the street.
Click to expand...

The system is stacked against the law abiding citizen who is wronged by police. It is virtually impossible to win a civil verdict on police misconduct charges unless you are killed or a member of a protected group. The bottom line is when you are faced with being a victim of police misconduct there is almost never any recourse after the fact, despite what a few apologists for police misconduct would have you believe.
 
Brerrabbit;

You are mistaken when you state that anyone can be charged with anything at anytime. In fact, officers and prosecutors much show probable cause that 1) a crime was committed, and 2) that you were the one that did it. This happens at the arraignment, when charges are read and a plea entered. Arresting or prosecuting someone without probable cause is a 4th amendment violation. Doing so is also prosecutorial misconduct. The Duke Lacrosse rape case is the most recent, visible, example of that.

I have no doubt that you read up on the law. You are definitely quite knowledgable. I just get the feeling that you don't have a holistic understanding of how the system works. Often I see highly intelligent people, such as yourself, apply their advanced college poly sci knowledge of the legal system, and they're just flat out wrong. The legal system rapidly processes tens or hundreds of thousands of criminal cases every day in this country. A system this large is invariably complicated. It in no way resembles a high school or college civics class depiction of the "ideal" system.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: you may read a supreme court decision, and understand it completely in the plain english sense of it. However, EVERY SINGLE word on each page has a specific legal definition. Further, implicit in every decision is the precedent and arguments of previous cases. Therefore, the plain english interpretation almost in no way relates the actual, legal interpretation. That's why lawyers can charge you $350/hour; they know the code.

Anyways, my point remains, fighting the cops is a fools game. As coronach and I repeat over and over, hash it out in court. You could win the jackpot.

-John
 
The system is stacked against the law abiding citizen who is wronged by police. It is virtually impossible to win a civil verdict on police misconduct charges unless you are killed or a member of a protected group. The bottom line is when you are faced with being a victim of police misconduct there is almost never any recourse after the fact, despite what a few apologists for police misconduct would have you believe.
Click to expand...
This has not been my experience. In many instances, police departments settle out of court prior to going to trial, even on cases in which they are very much in the right, simply because it will cost the department more to defend itself than the payout is worth. Furthermore, this tendency leads to a bias in which cases go to trial; they tend to be ones that are slam dunks for the defendant (in this case, the police department), which leads to a pretty good victory ratio for the police. The exceptions, of course, are the ones that make the news, either because of their notoriety or because of their implications for law enforcement as a whole.

Regardless, if you don't think you're going to get a fair shake in court, resisting arrest is not going to help in that regard. Once the officers decide that you've committed a crime, you are going to court (even if only for arraignment). The only question is how rough the road is from where you are to the judge's bench.

Mike
 
This has not been my experience. In many instances, police departments settle out of court prior to going to trial, even on cases in which they are very much in the right, simply because it will cost the department more to defend itself than the payout is worth. Furthermore, this tendency leads to a bias in which cases go to trial; they tend to be ones that are slam dunks for the defendant (in this case, the police department), which leads to a pretty good victory ratio for the police. The exceptions, of course, are the ones that make the news, either because of their notoriety or because of their implications for law enforcement as a whole.
Click to expand...
In cases such as the Norfolk PD case, and especially cases like the murder of Michael Pleasance by Officer Alvin Weems and the savage battering of Karolina Obryckya by Officer Anthony Abbate (both officers of the Chicago PD; YES there IS a pattern of behavior there), I am unalterably opposed to out of court settlements. This is for two reasons:

1. Typically, the city, department and officers involved do not admit fault, nor are they found guilty by a third party. If I were the family of Michael Pleasance, I wouldn't be too enthusiastic about a result best summarized as, "Your kid's dead; here's what we grudgingly think his life was worth; no harm, no foul." If it were my son or brother who'd been shot in the head for no apparent reason, I'd want somebody to be found legally culpable, instead of pretending it was an "act of god". It wasn't a hurricane that stomped on Karolyna Obrycka's head in the Short Stop Inn. It was Officer Anthony Abbate, and there needs to be a legal finding that says so.

2. A lot of out of court settlements have gag orders attached. If anybody thinks they're going to violate my rights or the rights of a relative, THEN violate my First Amendment rights to talk about it, they're smoking catfood. If you violate my rights or commit an intentional tort against me, I reserve the right to BOTH take everything you own, AND write a book talking about you like a dog. Don't like it? See you in court.

A few years ago, the Chicago PD shot and killed a guy in front of one of the houses where I grew up, or at least on the same block. The cops' story smelled like a cannery. The City of Chicago offered the family an insulting "settlement". The family told them to get bent, and went to court. A few months ago, the family won a JUDGEMENT in excess of $5,000,000, and an ADJUDICATED finding of fault against the City and the officers. Of course the guy's still dead...
 
John C

The original decision by the USSC was in pretty plain language and not open to much interpretation. It was considered pretty much absolutely covered under the first amendment. ie Not open to debate by the states.


New news in the case. What happened so far falls along with the hows and whys of what I said was going to happen with the exception of the followup civil lawsuits. Give them a week or three to find a good mouthpiece. There is blood in the water and the lawyers are circling.
. http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770802076


BTW +1 Deanimator also. He has voiced many of my feelings on this matter.
 
Brerrabbit;

Let me say again: I do not, in any way, condone the actions of the officer. As far as I'm concerned, he screwed up on the original issue. I don't defend his actions, nor come to his defense in any way, shape, or form. I am in complete agreement with you that supreme court decision allowing for flag burning and other political speech is straightforward.

My point to writing all of these posts is to hopefully educate the law abiding folks on this forum that doing what the folks did in this case was foolish. Further, despite the prevailing views on this forum, the delaying or resisting a peace officer (or whatever the equivalent charge in NC is) may be upheld in court, resulting in a misdemeanor conviction on the part of the couple. Maybe not.

My other point is that the law works in mysterious ways that laypeople don't always understand. For example:

"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Pretty straightforward? Right. Where does it say "except for automobiles, consent searches, probation or parole searches, exigent circumstances, incident to arrest, and inventory searches?" I don't see any of that in there (plus the ones I forgot off the top of my head).

The law is convoluted, and that's why we pay lawyers.

For example, in a neighboring town, a burglar was active burglarizing multi-million dollar homes. In one, he found child pornography. He anonymously tipped off the cops as to what he found. They conducted an investigation, and arrested the child pornographer. He went to prison, where such scumbags belong. A year or so later, the burglar was caught. He came forward as the one who tipped off cops originally. He got a 2/3rds discount on his sentence, 1 year county instead of 3 years prison.

This is just one example of how the law plays out, often is convoluted ways to the regular joe. How can the cops use evidence from a burglary, a felony crime, to get form the basis for an arrest warrant? Simple, the fourth amendment protects you from government intrusion, not simple burglaries. Any gathered in a non-governmental burglary is fair game. This is how many private detectives make their livings breaking into peoples houses looking for evidence that the cops can't legally get to. My state doesn't have a "breaking and entering" statute, only burglary. If the PIs are only breaking in looking for evidence, that's not a crime. So you can, and it's been done, hire a PI to break into your enemy's house to look for evidence of a crime. If he finds it, you can turn it over to the cops and see him fry.

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.

-John
 
Last edited:
John C

I agree with many of your points, but,,

How was actively resisting the deputies enforcement of a law that he knew or reasonable should have known was unconstitutional foolish? The court cannot try to pursue additional charges such as resisting arrest based on unlawful actions of the LEO. This has been born out in constitutional law many times before

They could accepted the citation and gone to court on the court date. Eend result? They plead the charges, or fight them. If they fought the charges, odds are they would have been dismissed. But their constitutional rights still stand violated. Considering that they have no damages to show, no compensation is provided and the status quo keeps on keeping on.

or

Actively resist and retreat, and let the deputy acting on a political aganda screw up. by his own actions in front of witnesses and his own paperwork Challenge the charges on constitutional grounds, and force the judge to either drop all the charges on constitutional grounds or escalate a case that quite likely result in censure if he persued it. Then because their rights were violated and can show damages, pursue a very expensive lawsuit against the county,and quite possibly the state, and the LEO involved to make a statement that constitutional rights are not gratis to be stomped on.

If these homeowners sue, which I fully expect them to, they will win. The facts of the case are not in dispute.

If they win a sizable judgement, it may actually force many of the LEO charged with enforcing laws to pay attention to the cost of violating fundamental rights. If nothing else, it quite likely will make a few policy changes in the departments that will force them to seek counsel before performing unconstitutional acts.

The end result is that freedom is best served by actively resisting encroachments on rights.
 
Brerrabbit;

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the point at which charges stemming from an initial illegality can stick. We've gone over this a couple of times. Part of a deputy's job is to investigate allegations of crimes. He was doing so (an allegation of a crime, which in this case is manifestly NOT a crime), when the homeowner delayed or resisted him in his investigation. Believe it or not, this may stick. I've seen this happen many times, when an officer makes a stop on a person for reasonable suspicion that a crime occurred, and the suspect takes off on foot. The officer chases, the fight's on, and when it's all over the suspect has nothing on him. He's booked for delaying or resisting an officer.

So, you either believe it or you don't. I mean this respectfully.

Will the homeowners get a substantially judgement? I really don't think so, based on what I've seen. They haven't really suffered any damages. Juries often give large sums that are later reduced. There's a very famous Los Angeles attorney who's made a living suing the LAPD. His trick is to take a case to trial, and then plead to the jury to award just $1 to the defendant, just to show the cops that they were wrong to do X or Y or Z. The case is usually quite mild, and jury, that would presumbly be reluctant to give a big award, finds for the plaintiff to the tune of $1. That means that the city must pay ALL of the plaintiff's attorney's fees, lining the pockets of this attorney. The plaintiff, who presumably had his rights violated, gets the $1.

-John
 
Give me a break, people!

YOU DON'T RUN FROM THE COPS!

Most states have laws that require drivers to present their driver's licenses or state-issued ID's to any LEO upon request. Your right not to is given up upon receipt of your license, just like your right not to submit to breath testing. Don't like it? Turn in your DL.

I believe the Kuhn's were itching for a fight with the cops in attempt to gain publicity for their cause, whatever the heck that is.

Bottom Line: Run from the cops, for any reason, and they will pursue. Fight with the cops and you go to jail.
 
2 points: 1. The homeowners WERE NOT DRIVING. They were on their own property.

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.

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.

Look, I like the fact that we have cops, and I think most are honest, decent folks, most of the time. Unfortunately the bad 1% (or whatever) are in a position to do almost anything with you and get away with it.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.

My guess as to what happened was that the officer was trying to issue them a summons on the charge, and requested ID. The request for ID is perfectly valid if a criminal charge is being made, since you need to know the exact identity of the person being charged. The Kuhns refused to provide ID, so the officer arrested them. They then decided that they were going to resist arrest by flight, and went into the house. The officer followed them in and completed the arrest. Completely standard, and perfectly valid.

The preceeding series of events is a guess, but an educated one. What I don't know, and won't hazard a guess about, is:

1. Whether or not the original charge has been tested in the local courts and upheld as valid. It seems pretty hazy to me, but I'm not sure.

2. How reasonable either party was up to the point at which the homeowner decided to tag up on base to avoid being called out by the umpire. ;)

Regardless, if you think a charge is BS, you need to fight it in court, not via resistance and flight. The latter course of action doesn't help you, and probably makes everything worse.

Mike
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Police shoot homeowner six times
2 3
Replies
68
Views
3K
Fred Fuller
F
G
  • Locked
what would you do in this situation?
Replies
10
Views
536
Jeff White
J
L
  • Locked
Police burst into your home
2 3
Replies
74
Views
3K
pax
P
A
  • Locked
Teen Shoots Home Invader
2 3
Replies
65
Views
2K
Fred Fuller
F
H
  • Locked
Home Invaders screaming "POLICE, POLICE" "GET ON THE GROUND".
Replies
2
Views
445
Kleanbore
K
Back
Top