The Resistance Rises: Restoring the 'Castle Doctrine'

[Owen Sparks]

As you may recall, last May the Indiana Supreme court ruled that residents have no right to obstruct unlawful police incursions into their homes.

Recently the lower house of the Indiana State Legislature approved a bill:
"To protect citizens from unlawful entry into their homes by law enforcement officers or persons pretending to be law enforcement officers."
The bill recognizes that an individual "may use force … to prevent or terminate a law enforcement officer’s unlawful entry."

http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w249.html

No word yet if the governor will sign this into law.

 

[CoRoMo]

Hope your state advances there.

Our legislature refuses to extend our 'castle doctrine' to protect business owners at their business property. So beyond your residential property, anything goes.

 

[mgkdrgn]

I must -really- question how much "help" this will be.

If you fire on the police when they enter your home, even illegally, they -will- kill you.

 

[ObsidianOne]

I must -really- question how much "help" this will be.

If you fire on the police when they enter your home, even illegally, they -will- kill you.

Better than someone shoving their way into your home and kill you (if that's their intention) and you have to stand by and let it happen.

I really wonder how 'no knock warrants' come into play here. I have to admit, I'd be inclined to fire upon or at the very least point a weapon at someone that kicks in my front door.

 

[MtnCreek]

"The measure allows for forcible entry only when the officer has a valid warrant or legitimate probable cause; is in pursuit of a criminal suspect; or is acting with the consent or on the invitation of an adult resident."

 

[armoredman]

I have no expectation of being the subject of a "dynamic", i.e., no-knock police warrant service, being that I do not engage I criminal activities, or have criminal associates. Just a few days ago four criminals posed as law enforcement officers in a town southeast of me, tied up and terrorized the residents while robbing them blind. I would not leave myself and my family to the tender mercies of brutal thugs. Given my total lack of criminal past or connections, anyone breaking in will be assumed to be home invaders.

 

[MtnCreek]

Given my total lack of criminal past or connections, anyone breaking in will be assumed to be home invaders.

Can't blame you for that. Just know that sometimes the police get the wrong address. They may think they're dealing with the guy with the meth lab next door and you think you're dealing with the home invaders... By the time it gets figured out, someone's probably dead. Not a good situation. I’m not saying you would be wrong to react that way, I’m just saying what I see as the probable outcome. Who knows, maybe this bill becoming law would change the way LE looks at entering people’s homes.

 

[armoredman]

Yes, someone would likely be dead. This HAS happened before, and IIRC it was an officer who lost his life to a law abiding homeowner. The story said the homeowner was found innocent. Wish I could remember when/where that was.
I worked in the LE sphere for many years, have friends behind the badge, and would never ever want to ever hurt one, men and women who are highly dedicated public servants. I can only hope the REAL result of these type of laws is LE agencies work to get 100% accuracy in dynamic entry warrants.

 

[hermannr]

I have no expectation of being the subject of a "dynamic", i.e., no-knock police warrant service, being that I do not engage I criminal activities, or have criminal associates. Just a few days ago four criminals posed as law enforcement officers in a town southeast of me, tied up and terrorized the residents while robbing them blind. I would not leave myself and my family to the tender mercies of brutal thugs. Given my total lack of criminal past or connections, anyone breaking in will be assumed to be home invaders.

Same thing happened in Marysville, WA..crooks looking for drugs posing as DEA agents. And just like the real agents...they had targeted the WRONG house.

Don't think that you being a law abiding citizen shields you from a no-knock warrent issued for the guy across the street,

IMHO: No-knock warrents are unconstitutional right from the start. That is not what the founding fathers meant to be able to happen.

 

[ObsidianOne]

I have no expectation of being the subject of a "dynamic", i.e., no-knock police warrant service, being that I do not engage I criminal activities, or have criminal associates. Just a few days ago four criminals posed as law enforcement officers in a town southeast of me, tied up and terrorized the residents while robbing them blind. I would not leave myself and my family to the tender mercies of brutal thugs. Given my total lack of criminal past or connections, anyone breaking in will be assumed to be home invaders.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/01/31/fbi-uses-chainsaw-in-raid-on-wrong-fitchburg-apartment/

I'm sure she felt the same way until the FBI tore through her door with a chainsaw and 'secured' her home...

 

[vtuck2]

Quote:
"The bill recognizes that an individual "may use force … to prevent or terminate a law enforcement officer’s unlawful entry.""

Hmmm.... if it passes you can beat up armed-and-shielded-to-the-teeth police to prevent them from entering your premises illegally???

I suppose even a gesture is better than nothing. But it DOES make it very problematic to appropriately respond to a home invasion robbery. I've never been a victim but I know people who have. And I've HEARD of home invasions where they're even DRESSED as police - never mind just claiming to be.

Yup. The only people who benefit from lawful dynamic entries to mistaken addresses - legal or otherwise - are the home invaders.

V

 

[HankB]

I've HEARD of home invasions where they're even DRESSED as police - never mind just claiming to be.

Here's a vid of fake FBI agents attempting a break-in . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdA_5r_Gu-A

 

[armoredman]

Don't think that you being a law abiding citizen shields you from a no-knock warrent issued for the guy across the street,

Hermann, I think this is the symptom manifesting here of everyone missing the point. This bill is NOT to post "open season" on LEOs, HELL no! Who it is aimed at is the PD who do NOT check and triple check information on dynamic entry warrants. It lays it square back on the LT and the Sgt to make triple sure they have the RIGHT place, because if they don't , they can't just shrug and say, "Oops, bill us." It will save lives for both LEOs and innocent civilians, also by putting on notice criminals who like to do impostor raids that they won't be able to hide behind their defiled fake badges any more.
That's what this is designed to do.

 

[medalguy]

And what of the instances where armed thugs wearing police jackets have beaten down doors and assaulted the residents before stealing anything of value? Are the residents to simply allow them entry unopposed?

I agree, I'm a 100% law-abiding citizen. Anyone who attempts to break down my door will receive a most unwelcome welcome. I can safely assume they are not there legally and will react accordingly.

 

[Twiki357]

Personally, I would rather see a law making individual LEO's personally liable (Civil and criminal) for their actions instead of the tax payers footing the bill for any inappropriate actions. At least that might make them think twice as to whether their actions are legal and appropriate.

Don't get me wrong, I support the police. But, every barrel is bound to have some bad apples and a lot of the bad ones just go on with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. The preverbal "Blue Wall is alive and well" and will continue to be as long as the tax payers keep footing the bill.

 

[DaisyCutter]

The term "unlawful arrest" is highly subjective. Most criminals don't agree with my decision to take them to jail.

I make every attempt to avoid escalation in the course of my duties, but sometimes it's unavoidable. The typical cop has a lot more practice at confrontation than the average person, and choosing to escalate against someone who is trained to escalate faster may be a poor decision.


I'm going home at the end of my shift. If you wanna put my safety in jeopardy, then your family can come ID your carcass at the medical examiner's office.

The garbage I read here builds the "blue wall" up real damn fast. I'm not gonna die for anyone else. Negative.

 

[MtnCreek]

Hey DaisyCutter,

Please let me know if your post is reaction to deleted post that I can’t see; sometimes that happens. Is your post a reaction to the people here that stated they are law abiding citizens and if someone busted in their home they would assume that person was there to harm them and their family, despite this person wearing a police uniform?

I'm going home at the end of my shift. If you wanna put my safety in jeopardy, then your family can come ID your carcass at the medical examiner's office.

In the context of this thread, what’s the difference between your post and the others? They're all a little over the top for an open discussion, don't you think? Only difference I see is that the others are talking about defending their home and it seems you’ve placed yourself on the other side of that argument.

I know several LEO and have talked to them enough to understand that, during their duties as LE, they typically interact with societies trash. I think I benefit from knowing this and I try to keep that in mind. Please try on your side to understand that everyone you interact with is not trash.

Thanks.

 

[mgkdrgn]

Hermann, I think this is the symptom manifesting here of everyone missing the point. This bill is NOT to post "open season" on LEOs, HELL no! Who it is aimed at is the PD who do NOT check and triple check information on dynamic entry warrants. It lays it square back on the LT and the Sgt to make triple sure they have the RIGHT place, because if they don't , they can't just shrug and say, "Oops, bill us." It will save lives for both LEOs and innocent civilians, also by putting on notice criminals who like to do impostor raids that they won't be able to hide behind their defiled fake badges any more.
That's what this is designed to do.

I gotta ask ... how do you figure this will help? At =best= all it does is protect the innocent homeowner/occupant for being charged with shooting at the police. Of course, he's still dead, but, you know, bill me.

And for those of you that think this kind of thing (police at the wrong place) is a once in a blue moon occurrence: http://www.cato.org/raidmap

 

[Telekinesis]

I must -really- question how much "help" this will be.

If you fire on the police when they enter your home, even illegally, they -will- kill you.

Apart from the obvious effects from this like not being prosecuted if you survive, a law like this could also help even in the event you are killed. Many life insurance policies have exemption clauses that say in effect "if you die while committing a crime, the insurance company is not liable to pay your beneficiaries". If its illegal to resist unlawful entry of police and you do and die, your family will be at risk of receiving nothing from your life insurance policy. However, if it is legal to resist (as this bill would make it) your family would still be eligible to receive any benefits they normally would because you were not committing a crime at the time of your death.

I'm going home at the end of my shift. If you wanna put my safety in jeopardy, then your family can come ID your carcass at the medical examiner's office.

DaisyCutter, you have some very good points.
I don't mean for this to sound like its "anti-cop" in any way, and honestly don't mean to offend you (or any others) by saying this, but...

What makes you think that your desire to live is any different from someone else's? Are we not all (well most anyway) biologically programed to try to survive at all costs?

Try to put yourself in the other guy's shoes:
You want to come home at the end of your shift? We have ALREADY come home from the end of OUR shift.

Us putting your safety in jeopardy? What about you putting OUR lives in jeopardy?
Except that instead of you facing maybe one or two of us, we're facing an entire heavily armed team! Instead of your family being safe at home, my family is right there in the same danger I'm in. And instead of getting a phone call that you have been injured or killed, my family gets to see it with their own eyes. If my wife reacts the same way I do, and we're both killed, not only are my kids orphans, but they see me and my wife killed in the most graphic way possible, by heavily armed, masked men who come in and take them away. Congratulations: that is how insurgencies are born.
(Again, I don't mean to insult you, but have you SEEN what multiple bullets do to someone's body? I have no desire for anyone to see that, much less to see it happen to someone they love.)

I have just as much desire to keep my family from having to make the trip to "ID my carcass" as you have to keep your family from having to make the trip to ID yours.


Please realize that we as homeowners have so much more to loose than the individuals conducting the raids.

 

[osan]

If you fire on the police when they enter your home, even illegally, they -will- kill you.

What do you suggest? Laying down and spreading 'em for them? Shoot the mongrels as dead as yesterday. If everyone answered them this way they would get some religion and desist. Sure, they might decided to escalate their methods, but this runs the risk of precipitating public responses they may find substantially undesirable. They need to remember several things including the fact that they work for us, that we are their bosses, and that we outnumber them hundreds to one. We have to be willing to put as many cops into pine boxes as is necessary to bring them to proper heel such that all of this gratuitous murder of those whom they are ostensibly hired to protect comes to an end. Police in the USA are frothing at the mouth lunatics and they need to be stopped without equivocation. We are in a war with government over the issue of our rights. This is a war no less than was the American Revolution. Time to shake off the tyrants and their vicious little lap dogs.

 

[PowerG]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye

 

[Espada]

Maye really appears to have been innocent -

Maye should have been exonerated and paid for ten years' false imprisonment.

The law dangled an "exoneration of the legal system carrot" in front of a desperate and innocent man, knowing he'd jump at the crappy deal.

 

[Loosedhorse]

What is meant by an unlawful police entry? A corrupt cop who is entering your home to rob and murder you? Well, I guess that's possible. And under IN law, in successfuly defending yourself (if you survive), you will go to jail.

How 'bout a cop who has no warrant or probable cause, and wants to push past you to enter your apartment anyway. If you push back, you are now under arrest AND THAT CHARGE WILL STICK even if the illegality of the entry is later fully admitted. You go to jail.

Illegal acts by cops do happen, whether from incompetence, frustration, or true mens rea. Such acts are rare. But by saying that you are committing a crime by "obstucting" the cop's illegal act is saying that even when EVERYONE later recognizes the cop acted illegally, YOU'RE STILL GOING TO JAIL.

That's wrong. The IN SC was wrong in their ruling, and I hope the legislature corrects that error.

 

[whalerman]

Daisy, let me ask you, how would YOU respond if confronted with a similar situation? I don't think it serves our discussion at all be referring to a citizen's "carcass" being IDed by anybody. Sometimes the carcass you refer to can be a complete innocent, or even a LE officer. Concern by law abiding citizens about having their doors kicked in is a reasonable concern. Lighten up and offer constructive input.

 

[wlewisiii]

You realize the OP is quoting from a Neo-Nazi web site? Anything Lew Rockwell has to say should be confirmed by multiple legitimate sources before believing it.