ISC: no right to resit unlawful police entry into your home

[azmjs]

I tend to side with the police, because of the fact that our justice system already has a perfectly good remedy to unreasonable police searches.

Cases are thrown out all the time because of police misconduct during searches.

In no event did the defendants have to attack or kill policemen in order to obtain these outcomes.

 

[Dreamcast270mhz]

This is complete BS. 4A protects home and property under the threat of police WITHOUT probable cause. Barnes is a wild case that shows that the constitution needs HEAVY revision. You can still request a warrant but in this case, there is no need, Mr Barnes was obviously committing a crime and at that point, loses his right to refuse entry to LEO.

 

[lobo9er]

The ruling only makes it illegal to physically resist at the time of the violation.

To resist an ILLEGAL ENTRY is now ILLEGAL. So there are some here who do not totally, 100% disagree with that?

Barnes is a wild case that shows that the constitution needs HEAVY revision.

Is that a serious quote?

This case with barnes looks to me like an excuse to change some laws.

 

[armoredman]

Barnes is a wild case that shows that the constitution needs HEAVY revision.

Disagree 110%.

 

[ATBackPackin]

Nevermind, I found out more info.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Here is what this sort of thing leads to:

Former Marine killed because he had the temerity to defend his family from a criminal assault carried out by armed strangers.

http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w212.html

Another government licensed home invasion.

 

[sv51macross]

Here is what this sort of thing leads to:

Former Marine killed because he had the temerity to defend his family from a criminal assault carried out by armed strangers.

http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w212.html

Another government licensed home invasion.
__________________

Is theres a source that doesn't read like a Glenn Beck/Alex Jones collaborative?

 

[Owen Sparks]

Sure, watch the local news clip right there in the middle of the article.

 

[ATBackPackin]

Here is what this sort of thing leads to:

Former Marine killed because he had the temerity to defend his family from a criminal assault carried out by armed strangers.

http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w212.html

Another government licensed home invasion.
__________________

Watching that made my blood boil and my eyes well up. I truly feel for his widow and son. Two more people that will NEVER trust the police again.

They knew they were wrong, denied him any kind of medical attention, and then tried to paint him as some kind of thug. Saying that they found something relevant to the case in that home is nothing more than a cover up.

One can only hope that karma acts swiftly and severely to all officers involved in this case. These no knocks are getting way out of hand..............


I'm going to stop there before I really veer sharply off The High Road.

 

[avs11054]

Here is what this sort of thing leads to:

Former Marine killed because he had the temerity to defend his family from a criminal assault carried out by armed strangers.

http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w212.html

Another government licensed home invasion.

And what exactly is your point? Everyone on this thread has been advocating the fourth amendment, and police shouldn't be allowed to enter a house without a search warrant. In this article the police went and got a search warrant (which is issued by a judge based on probably cause) and served it. After entering, Guerena was waiting with a gun pointed at the officers. He was then shot.

The police department already said that this was NOT a no-knock search warrant (which also has to be signed off on by a judge). Because of this I would think that Guerena knew long before his door was kicked in that it was the police.

Arizona Statutes state:

13-3916:

B. An officer may break into a building, premises or vehicle or any part of a building, premises or vehicle, to execute the warrant when:

1. After notice of the officer's authority and purpose, the officer receives no response within a reasonable time.

2. After notice of the officer's authority and purpose, the officer is refused admittance.

3. A magistrate has authorized an unannounced entry pursuant to section 13-3915.

4. The particular circumstances and the objective articulable facts are such that a reasonable officer would believe that giving notice of the officer's authority and purpose before entering would endanger the safety of any person or result in the destruction of evidence.

 

[avs11054]

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_d7d979d4-f4fb-5603-af76-0bef206f8301.html

Here's more of the story other than that extremely spun article that was originally posted.

It is usually the fire department's descision not to enter a scene when someone is shot rather than the officer's descision not to let them enter.

""Tucson is notorious for home invasions and we didn't want to look like that," said Lt. Michael O'Connor of the Pima County Sheriff's Department. "We went lights and sirens and we absolutely did not do a 'no-knock' warrant."

When five SWAT members broke through the front door Guerena was crouched down pointing the gun at them, said O'Connor.

"The suspect said, 'I've got something for you,' when he saw them," "

His wife denies this, yet she also says she and her son were hiding in a closet. If she was hiding in a closet, how does she know what he was doing/saying?

 

[azmjs]

Is theres a source that doesn't read like a Glenn Beck/Alex Jones collaborative?

Jesus, you aren't lying...

Meanwhile, his killers were planning to lay siege to several homes in the neighborhood as part of the Regime's Narcotics Price Support Program, the murderous charade sometimes called the "War on Drugs."

That's one of the most bizarre, plainly insane things I've come across in some time. Jared Loughner level stuff.

=-=-

Anyhow,

If you take up arms against the police, there's really only one outcome you can expect, and that you choose for yourself.

If someone believes that there are "regime hit squads" out to get him, who kick in doors dressed as police SWAT teams, then for the sake of his own safety and that of his family, he needs professional medical psychiatric help.

In order to be responsible, every gun owner needs to sit down and take some time to reflect on how he's going to react if the swat team raids his house.

There's no way to tell for sure whether the SWAT team is who they say they are and appear to be, they may very well be imposters.

So, you've got to decide what you're going to do- attack them, or not.

If they are the real police (and there's an almost 100% chance that they are), then you'll probably be killed when they defend themselves, and there's a chance that others in your house will be too, plus you'll be guilty of any harm you do to them.

If they are real policemen and you don't attack them, then your life is in almost no danger, unless you're guilty of a serious crime for which they've come to apprehend you.

If they're imposers, you'll probably be killed by them anyway when they fire back at you. Note that in this case, even if the dead guy had been protecting himself, he lost the gunfight.

So, just like you should have fire-escape and emergency preparedness plans, you need to sit down and think about the various outcomes that your reaction to a police raid would entail, and create a preparedness plan accordingly.

The gold standard, very best practice, when confronted by the police, is to toss away any weapon you've got, and either lay on the floor with your hands on your head or else stand up with your hands on your head.

 

[Owen Sparks]

The typical statist advice for dealing with an armed criminal is “Never resist, just give him what he wants”. These people believe that only the police should be able to use force and you should either flee or comply if confronted by a home invader. When self defense against common criminals is frowned upon what would you expect when the criminals ARE the police?

 

[henschman]

One of the many problems with this ruling is that it purports to make the rights of victims dependant on the identity and occupation of the aggressor. If the right to self defense really is a natural and inalienable right, it should not matter who is threatening your rights -- you should be privileged to defend yourself against the initiation of force whether the aggressor is a filthy crackhead or the King of England.

There is also the secondary issue that a victim may not realize that his aggressor is employed as an enforcer for the state when he is defending himself. Dependant on the occupation of the aggressor, use of force by the victim could constitute either lawful self defense, or a felony. Depending on who the attacker is, the victim could end up as a free man, or imprisoned for the rest of his life (assuming he survives the initial attack).

This places a lot of uncertainty on the act of defending oneself. It may tend to make people apprehensive about doing so. Let's be clear -- we are talking about victims who are having their rights unlawfully violated. I don't believe that any victim should bear that strong of a burden of uncertainty, or should be disincetivized from defending himself.

As for the risks of executing a nighttime or no-knock warrant, that is exactly why such warrants are supposed to be considered the exception rather than the rule, and are only to be used under exceptional circumstances. Police are aware that this is a very dangerous practice with a much higher likelihood for violence than a typical warrant. They should be prepared for the possible consequences if they are going to use such dangerous methods. Such methods certainly do not justify destroying the rights of individuals so that the police will have an easier time when they screw up and raid an innoncent person's house.

One of the most common objections to gun control is that gun control infringes on our right to self defense. It does this in a somewhat indirect way, by restricting the means by which people may defend themselves. This ruling is a much more serious threat to the right to self defense than any gun control law, because it directly abrogates an individual's right to self defense. It basically throws our right to live out the window. It requires you to submit unconditionally to a threat to your life or limb if the aggressor happens to be an armed agent of the state.

Someone mentioned an appeal -- guys, there can be no appeal from this ruling. The case is over the State's self defense laws, which are purely a matter of state law. This is a decision from the State's court of last resort, and serves as a definitive statement of what the law is on the subject in that state.

Fortunately, I don't think this reasoning will be adopted very widely in other states. It really is a drastic departure from a 900 year old rule of common law.

 

[avs11054]

Henschman,

Again, I will state my argument for the ruling. If an individual decides to defend himself against when the police enter into his residence, how does he KNOW if the seach is lawful or not?

The search is based on the officer's observations and evidence. A person may THINK that a search is unlawful, when in fact it is lawful. If that person then decides to use up to and including deadly force, they increase everyone's risk of injury and/or death.

Let's take the case of Jose Guerena that was just presented. Say he truly believed he and his family had done nothing wrong. The police decide to come to the door with a search warrant (thus making the entry lawful). Jose feels the entry is unlawful, and he decides to respond with deadly force. His wife is now a widow and his kids are now fatherless because of this.

 

[zxcvbob]

USSC just ruled 8-1 today that the entry is always lawful because the police can claim exigent circumstances after-the-fact. Ginsberg is the only one who got it right.

 

[dmancornell]

The gold standard, very best practice, when confronted by the police, is to toss away any weapon you've got, and either lay on the floor with your hands on your head or else stand up with your hands on your head.

The gold standard is abject, pitiful submission to the state and their Schutzstaffel goons even if their intent is illegal and their moral backing is non-existent?

In your own words, that's one of the most bizarre, plainly insane things I've come across in some time. Jared Loughner level stuff.

I guess you can't really expect anything sane out of someone who supports the drug war.

 

[Remo223]

I've come to the conclusion that this ruling is so incredibly whacky, it is irrelevant. That is why i quit arguing the the boot lickers here. I don't believe this ruling will ever be referenced by another ruling in the future. I do not believe it is a legitimate precedence. I believe it will be viewed as an embarrassment by the legal community. I am still shocked there are so many boot lickers on a forum that should naturally be heavily weighted in people with enhanced respect for constitutional rights.

 

[Remo223]

USSC just ruled 8-1 today that the entry is always lawful because the police can claim exigent circumstances after-the-fact. Ginsberg is the only one who got it right.

what is this? Please elaborate

 

[dmancornell]

what is this? Please elaborate

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/us/17scotus.html

 

[Remo223]

lovely.

Again, it comes down to the war on drugs and the war on terror that are destroying our rights. LIke I have stated before, I've recently changed my opinion of both of these wars. My rights are more important to me than catching drug dealers and fanatical muslims.

 

[avs11054]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/us/17scotus.html

I don't know why this is news. Destruction of evidence has always been one of the exceptions to the search warrant requirement.

 

[avs11054]

lovely.

Again, it comes down to the war on drugs and the war on terror that are destroying our rights. LIke I have stated before, I've recently changed my opinion of both of these wars. My rights are more important to me than catching drug dealers and fanatical muslims.

Not me...I've got nothing to hide. If the cops want to search my house, come on over. You'll find nothing here linking me to drugs or terrorism.

 

[dmancornell]

I don't know why this is news. Destruction of evidence has always been one of the exceptions to the search warrant requirement.

You're wrong, the only existing legal precedent is the admission of evidence gained during such a warantless entry *after* the homeowner consents to entry.

The latest SCOTUS ruling says the mere belief that evidence is being destroyed preempts the 4th Amendment, which is an entirely new assault on civil rights.

 

[Shadow 7D]

AVS

Henschman,

Again, I will state my argument for the ruling. If an individual decides to defend himself against when the police enter into his residence, how does he KNOW if the seach is lawful or not?

The search is based on the officer's observations and evidence. A person may THINK that a search is unlawful, when in fact it is lawful. If that person then decides to use up to and including deadly force, they increase everyone's risk of injury and/or death.

Let's take the case of Jose Guerena that was just presented. Say he truly believed he and his family had done nothing wrong. The police decide to come to the door with a search warrant (thus making the entry lawful). Jose feels the entry is unlawful, and he decides to respond with deadly force. His wife is now a widow and his kids are now fatherless because of this.

Anybody read the comments
One is from a neighbor a block down, said unmarked SUV's with Decked out SWAT officers...
Didn't hear anything until she heard gunfire

Wife said she saw them outside
So, one can guess that the never got to the KNOCK and ANNOUNCE part
Door was shot, some question if they even tried it or just shot through it and the walls...

I think the PD and SO will be paying out BIG TIME

See they have trained EMT/Paramedics on the swat teams (its in the story), AND every officers it taught to a MILITARY standard, I used to teach that class...
THEY LET THE DUDE BLEED OUT, sorry but, failing to render aid is a CRIME in a number of states AND grounds to loose your EMT license.