Middle Ground

[DRZinn]

A solution that seems to have escaped all involved in the recently-closed "innocent homeowner/drug-dealing POS shoots at hard-working cops/JBT's" thread:

If the citizen is found to be innocent of the crime for which the warrant is being served , it would be reasonable to assume that he thought his home was being invaded. If found guilty, it should be assumed (provided that the police identified themselves both visually and AT THE TOP OF THEIR DAMNED LUNGS) that the subject should damn well have believed them when they said they were cops, since he had reason to suspect cops busting through his door.

Thoughts?

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

"Subject"


The English are Subjects, we are Citizens - or at least I thought so. BIG difference. Like Ronald Reagan said, America is the last stand for humanity, once freedom is gone here, there is no where to run. Remember those words.



While it pains many to read or see threads about potential police abuse or real police abuse, these threads are necessary to build awareness. The only people who can control and keep check on the police power is the people themselves who are citizens.


Once you step back too far, police will abuse futher. It is not their fault, it is simply the nature of their being in society. It will never change.




2 of my good friends are LEO's, and they are very disgusted with the actions of some officers. Some of which are being discussed in current threads now. Usually a few police ruin it for the 1,000's of hard working dedicated officers who lay their lives on the the line for us.



This country is suffereing through a crisis at the moment. We have serious problems with search and seizure, presumption of innocence, police tactics, rights etc....



About your topic,


Each State has different laws regarding home-invasions and the self-defense measures you can take. If police break into your home, it would be nearly IMPOSSIBLe to justify any sort of self defense or make any kind of defense in court against the police. The court will be heavily biased in favor of the police who are part of the State and the enforcers of the court.


If the cops bust in, and they had legitimate probable cause in soliciting a warrant for searching your home by force....I imagine they would identify themselves, and if you reacted with any deadly force - chances are you would never make it to court, but at the coroners office instead.

 

[Car Knocker]

Don't Tread On Me,

Being a bit pedantic, aren't you? DocZinn used the term citizen in the prior sentence. In this instance, "subject" refers to one who is the focus of thought, discussion, investigation or other action. My dictionary lists 22 definitions for 'subject', of which only 2 refer to a person who is under the domination of a sovereign or state.

If police break into your home, it would be nearly IMPOSSIBLe to justify any sort of self defense or make any kind of defense in court against the police. The court will be heavily biased in favor of the police who are part of the State and the enforcers of the court.

See the following thread of a current case dealing with this very issue:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97572

 

[FedDC]

I think Doc more or less summed it up. As for the second response...we could have several seperate threads on each of the issues mentioned, all of which would end up getting locked after becoming a name calling troll fest. I think you forgot the most important part though "With the increasing militarization of the Police"

As to the innocent vs giulty of the charged crime and resulting warrant...in a perfect world yes, innocent would be innocent, but we all know that being truly innocent and being found innocent or not having enough evidence to get charged are very different things. Incarceration these days is more about money and politics than true innocence. It is a tragedy that our justice system has been perverted by scumbag lawyers and liberal judges that want to subvert the constitution...but then again, many of us are the same ones that would be running to one of those scumbag attys and trying to go before a liberal judge if it were our kid that was facing a charge whether he did it or not so in large part we have ourselved to blame.

 

[DRZinn]

I realize that not all found innocent truly are, nor are all found guilty truly guilty. But in the absence of a truly objective way to determine whether the person in the home thought he was in danger, we could use guilt or innocence as a substitute. If he was guilty, he should have known the cops would come calling. If he was innocent, he legitimately thought his life was in danger. If he's guilty but found innocent, the cops should have done a bit more evidence-gathering and surveillance before executing a no-knock warrant, shouldn't they?

 

[FedDC]

I don't know. Again, in a perfect world your standard would be just that, perfect...but in out present system where juries are less and less reliable and often chosen for their lack of education and intelligence, I am leery of the jury verdict. In short juries are too easily manipulated bc there is suck a low standard for jurors. They do not even have to be literate in most cases. How do you explain DNA or ballistic testing to someone that can't even read?

My standard for this shooting would be the same one that is used in LE. Did the shooter fire in Immediate Defense of Life? If he can articulate that the threat posessed Ability, opportunity, and a demonstrated intent to kill him, then shoot away...but it would be hard to articulate that since he could not clearly see them without x-ray vision and if he could see them, why could he not see the overt vest that says Police?

I doubt this issue will ever be totally settled, since none of us were there and I can no more say what he saw or herd than the next MMQB.

 

[DRZinn]

I'm not arguing this case, I'm arguing for a general standard for all such cases.

If there is a problem with the jury selection system (which I'm not disputing), that's a completely separate issue. The point is that that is already supposed to be the standard for determining guilt or innocence, so why not stretch it a bit to cover a related issue?

 

[FedDC]

Well, it depends... (I hate that phrase). When the appeal is decided, I have a feeling that this situation will get reversed. At present, they suspect has not been found innocent bc he has not been tried. All that happened was that the judge threw out the evidence in a hearing... If the appeal goes in favor of the gov and the guy is still found innocent after all of the evidence is presented, I would be inclined to agree with you.

 

[DRZinn]

Well, of course, no matter how many times a decision is changed, it is the ultimate verdict that counts....

And since you can't take action against the cops (if they're wrong) until all the citizen's appeals are over, that's all the more reason for a SPEEDY trial process.