The Resistance Rises: Restoring the 'Castle Doctrine'

Status
Not open for further replies.
Loosedhorse said:
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.
Click to expand...
When you push back, how do you know the cop doesn't have PC or a search warrant? Cops are still sometimes legally able to go into people's houses to check the welfare of the people inside. So everyone who uses the "I'm a law abiding citizen so nobody should be coming in my house" argument aren't entirely correct if they think there is nothing that will give the police the right to come in the house.

This is what makes a law like this dangerous. People who don't know when police can come into their houses will make stupid decisions that will start getting people hurt, when the police action could be 100% lawful.
 
Shooting a police officer on the presumption of:

*An unlawful arrest
*entry into a residence without probable cause


Whether probable cause exists or whether an arrest is lawful is arguable in court. Members here are saying they'll kill an LEO based upon their own subjective determination as it relates to a legal matter in which they are a party.

The police arent planning to execute anyone after arrest. They are taking a person to a judge because they have reason to believe the person committed a violation.

Some of ya'll shouldn't have access to firearms if you're willing to kill a LEO as a matter of arguing probable cause.

This whole thread is garbage and reflects poorly on the members of this forum who possess the capacity for rational thought and the ability to behave reasonably.

Frankly, I'd peacefully comply with an unlawful arrest, and then have my attorney email the mayor requesting a check with my preferred amount of zeros. No reason to open fire.
 
With your last words being "No reason to open fire." I give you one question. You are sound asleep with your family in the middle of the night. You are awakened by your dog barking then hear the sound of breaking glass and wood. What would your reaction be to that? I will tell you that I am reasonably sure as you sit at your keyboard playing that one out in your mind during the daylight hours your actions when awaken from a deep sleep would be much different. As such I believe the point here that as humans we ALL make mistakes, can you explain why as non leo personel we are "punished" when so many times you are not? (guess that was really 2 questions! oops sue me!)
 
I think this is one of those situations in which there may never be a real solution to.

In one situation the homeowner shoots a police officer who is apparently unlawfully breaking into the person's home by mistake.

In the other situation the homeowner submits to a robber who is posing as a police officer and may or may not come out the other side.

The problem is the homeowner needs to be made aware that the police are at the door prior to breaking in and they also need a way to positively ID that they are infact the police. The police need the element of surprise and may not have time to knock let alone show proof of ID to the dweller inside.

It seems the only solution right now is to provide legal protection to a law abiding citizen who is just trying to protect their home and themselves from someone who they don't honestly know who they are. The bad guys (given the chance) are likely going to try to shoot the intruder regardless of whether they are LE or not.
 
It seems the only solution right now is to provide legal protection to a law abiding citizen who is just trying to protect their home and themselves from someone who they don't honestly know who they are. The bad guys (given the chance) are likely going to try to shoot the intruder regardless of whether they are LE or not.
Click to expand...

This sounds good until the badguys start using that as a defense.
 
avs11054 said:
This sounds good until the badguys start using that as a defense.
Click to expand...
Well assuming the LE agency did do their homework and got the right address and a warrant and or permission from a judge then they wouldn't be able to use it as a defense because the entry by LE wouldn't be unlawful.

Unless I misunderstood your response.
 
DaisyCutter said:
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.
Click to expand...
Have you ever read the 4th ammendment? Do you understand it? Do you realize that it applies to the guilty as well as the innocent?

You come across just like the bullies that give LE a bad name, and exactly the reason law like the one in Indiana are necessary. Neither you, nor I have the right to be judge, jury and executioner if our lives are not threated. "The Law" does not walk on two legs, and carry a M4 or M16. "The Law" is something that is written, and should conform to the constitution of the state, and the united state.

IMHO: If they really want to stop the "dynamic" entries, that procedure sould be just outlawed based on the 4th ammendment. There is no reasonable reason for them, ever. Shades of Germany 1942...no thanks, there is nothing so important that it deserves a dynamic entry. Doesn't matter if you are looking for Jews, Moslems, or drugs. (or Christians for that matter)
 
Last edited:
And hermannr is exactly right. He is also onto the reason this discussion is taking place. There may be reasons for these type of entries to take place, such as the belief that someone is in grave danger in a residence and time is of the essence, but these justifications have been OVERUSED. This has led to too many mistakes. After which LE runs and hides behind extremely questionable justification, or none at all.
 
As daisycutter said, and I assume he is LEO and this is a typical LEO attitude, "it is highly subjective." It shouldn't be...
 
hermannr said:
Have you ever read the 4th ammendment? Do you understand it? Do you realize that it applies to the guilty as well as the innocent?

You come across just like the bullies that give LE a bad name, and exactly the reason law like the one in Indiana are necessary. Neither you, nor I have the right to be judge, jury and executioner if our lives are not threated. "The Law" does not walk on two legs, and carry a M4 or M16. "The Law" is something that is written, and should conform to the constitution of the state, and the united state.

IMHO: If they really want to stop the "dynamic" entries, that procedure sould be just outlawed based on the 4th ammendment. There is no reasonable reason for them, ever. Shades of Germany 1942...no thanks, there is nothing so important that it deserves a dynamic entry. Doesn't matter if you are looking for Jews, Moslems, or drugs. (or Christians for that matter)
Click to expand...
Do you understand that the INSC case had nothing to do with a SWAT team serving a search warrant? We can argue all day that cops need to do their homework and get the right house. There are still plenty of other times when a warrantless entry is lawful. Just because the homeowner thinks its unlawful doesn't mean the cops are in the wrong.
 
There are still plenty of other times when a warrantless entry is lawful. Just because the homeowner thinks its unlawful doesn't mean the cops are in the wrong.
Click to expand...

That right there is the main problem. There are too many BS ways that LEO can "legally" gain entry to your home without a proper warrant. One simple solution is to for people to stop being friggin sheep and get these ways struck down. In other words, no warrant, don't try entering my damn home. PERIOD!

And DaisyCutter, your attitude seems to be one of those that I would like to ram down the throats of those having it. I know many LEO's and have had the pleasure of training many of them in CQB. My way of looking at this is, if you are in my home without a warrant, you are completely stripped of any protection of your badge and are therefor considered an ARMED intruder and will be dealt with as such. No if's and's or but's about it. Government and Police are way out of control these days. I'm by far no keyboard commando nor do I have a blood thirst. But one fact is, you come in my home armed without a warrant, you can expect to be shot on sight. I, like other posters in here, am a law abiding citizen and will be treated as such. LEO's with attitudes like yours DaisyCutter need to be relieved of duty PERIOD! The days of people cowering to your badges are fast coming to an end. That badge gives you NO right to trample on MY damn rights as much as you would like to believe it does.

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.
Click to expand...

That little statement right there can be said in another way Daisy, You want to put YOUR OWN safety at risk by entering my home illegally, then your own damn family can come ID your carcass. I can guarantee you that I am better armed than you and better trained!
 
And DaisyCutter, your attitude seems to be one of those that I would like to ram down the throats of those having it. I know many LEO's and have had the pleasure of training many of them in CQB. My way of looking at this is, if you are in my home without a warrant, you are completely stripped of any protection of your badge and are therefor considered an ARMED intruder and will be dealt with as such. No if's and's or but's about it. Government and Police are way out of control these days. I'm by far no keyboard commando nor do I have a blood thirst. But one fact is, you come in my home armed without a warrant, you can expect to be shot on sight. I, like other posters in here, am a law abiding citizen and will be treated as such. LEO's with attitudes like yours DaisyCutter need to be relieved of duty PERIOD! The days of people cowering to your badges are fast coming to an end. That badge gives you NO right to trample on MY damn rights as much as you would like to believe it does.
Click to expand...

Haha...and this right here is why this law is a terrible idea. You say that you're going to shoot it out when anyone comes into your house without a warrant, yet, as stated earlier, there are times when police are legally allowed to be in your house without a warrant. You say you're a law abiding citizen and then you make a comment like this that has absolutely no respect for the law.
 
When you push back, how do you know the cop doesn't have PC or a search warrant?
Click to expand...
Well, one answer: if I have done nothing wrong, then it is far more likely that he doesn't have PC or a warrant, or has a faulty warrant, than that he has valid cause to enter. If I'm cooking dinner I should have different expectations than if I'm cooking meth.

Another answer: WHO CARES WHAT I KNOW? If I am obstructing an officer in his legal duties, guess what: there are penalties for that, criminal penalties. I will pay. If the officer had to break one of my arms in using the necessary force to subdue me, guess what: that's on me, too.

However, what the IN SC said was: if I obstruct an officer from committing a criminal act, I go to jail exactly the same as if the officer was behaving legally. That should be true only in countries where the law-abiding have no rights vs the police.
People who don't know when police can come into their houses will make stupid decisions that will start getting people hurt
Click to expand...
If so, then penalize the "stupid" people for illegally resisting lawful police entry; only them. Don't force the law-abiding to submit to illegal arrest and/or search and seizure--not to mention intentional criminal acts like assault, robbery, or murder--just because the person committing those acts has a badge.

How many laws are you willing to pass that strip rights from the law-abiding in order to protect the stupid from the consequences of their own stupidity? Pretty much EVERY gun-control law, for example, could be justified on that basis.
 
If a law enforcement officer CLEARLY IDENTIFIED AS SUCH needs access to my home on reasonable suspicion, then AFTER IDENTIFYING HIM OR HERSELF then lawful entry can be made. I will not get in the way of lawful police activities.
I wonder at this statement,
DaisyCutter said:
They are taking a person to a judge because they have reason to believe the person committed a violation.
Click to expand...
When, exactly, does a LEO take a person directly from the street to a judge? Name once, please. He/She is going to booking at the local jail, unless it's an RTC issue on a violate, then he's going to the closest appropriate Complex.
DaisyCutter said:
Frankly, I'd peacefully comply with an unlawful arrest, and then have my attorney email the mayor requesting a check with my preferred amount of zeros.
Click to expand...
That I can get behind fully, IF I KNOW THE ARRESTING OFFICER IS INDEED AN OFFICER. If an officer arrests me I am going to comply, and we'll hash it out in court later. That's not what I am talking about. The focus I have on this argument is the dynamic entry warrant service, not confrontations on the street or any other such.
After 10 years as a sworn officer I don't believe I have a negative attitude towards LEO, what I have is a negative attitude toward sloppy work that can result in death or injury of an innocent third person. If notice is placed that dynamic entry is either no longer an option, OR that the warrant/location has to be crystal clear, (in the age of Google and MapQuest, even!), before such service is to take place.
As for intentional police illegal entries...Google Rampart sometime.
 
ObsidianOne said:
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.
Click to expand...
To me, (and I would assume, to most people), that all but forces the question: how does one know an "officer's" intent? How can anyone expect to know if its a genuine LEO, or a criminal disguised as one?

I don't see how this kind of legislation is going to benefit anybody. Of course I'm all for using any level of force necessary to protect yourself and your family inside your own home, without regard for who is posing a threat. Still though... how are you going to know? It just seems to be asking for trouble. We shouldn't need legislation to protect us from recourse after we do something every human being is born with the right to do; of course I'm talking about self-defense when we're attacked unlawfully.
 
armoredman said:
That I can get behind fully, IF I KNOW THE ARRESTING OFFICER IS INDEED AN OFFICER. If an officer arrests me I am going to comply, and we'll hash it out in court later. That's not what I am talking about. The focus I have on this argument is the dynamic entry warrant service, not confrontations on the street or any other such.
After 10 years as a sworn officer I don't believe I have a negative attitude towards LEO, what I have is a negative attitude toward sloppy work that can result in death or injury of an innocent third person. If notice is placed that dynamic entry is either no longer an option, OR that the warrant/location has to be crystal clear, (in the age of Google and MapQuest, even!), before such service is to take place.
As for intentional police illegal entries...Google Rampart sometime.
Click to expand...

This.

I'm more than willing to cooperate with LE, even if they're there to arrest or search my place by mistake.

The dangerous part is IDing them. I'm not going to cooperate with someone it I'm not 100% sure who they are. Be it by unannounced dynamic entry or by someone in a crappy costume.
 
Thank you, Moderators, for allowing this discussion to continue. It is very interesting.

These warrantless searches are used too often, to a point of absurdity. If that situation is addressed and LE is more careful about what they are doing that alone will make people safer. But LE can't expect a homeowner to not be defensive of his family. Especially when they are not involved in any criminal activity. LE thinks its military. They are not.
 
Haha...and this right here is why this law is a terrible idea. You say that you're going to shoot it out when anyone comes into your house without a warrant, yet, as stated earlier, there are times when police are legally allowed to be in your house without a warrant. You say you're a law abiding citizen and then you make a comment like this that has absolutely no respect for the law.
Click to expand...

No I have no respect for illegal entries which, in the instance of warrantless entry, is ILLEGAL. LEO's have abused PC entry laws to the extent of sheer lunacy. 99% of the LEO's around here know me and know me VERY well. They also know I would have no qualms whatsoever in defending my home from unlawful entry. I doubt very seriously they would ever attempt it. But most people do not have the same advantage. Warrantless entry for ANY reason other than real endangerment to someones life needs to be stricken from the books and not allowed PERIOD! I don't care if the cop is strolling by and can smell the meth cooking. Get a damn proper warrant. It's not like they are hard to obtain.
 
No I have no respect for illegal entries which, in the instance of warrantless entry, is ILLEGAL.
Click to expand...

Again, this statement alone is why this law is dangerous. Warrantless entries are not illegal in some instances. It's people like you who are going to get LEOs and yourself killed because of your ignorance. Please Google 'exceptions to the search warrant requirement' and educate yourself instead of spreading misinformation.
 
avs, you seem to only be able to comprehend one small sentence in a paragraph. Please educate yourself in reading a fundamentally easy statement before you type. Let me point out what you missed. You only seem to have read the very first sentence. Before you quote half truths and take things out of context, please read and TRY to comprehend the complete statement. If you feel the need to stick up for the law breaking LEO's that are entering homes on a daily basis under false pretense then people like you are what is wrong. Being a law abiding citizen tells me that there is absolutely NO reason for the law to be entering my home without a proper warrant. It's that simple. So that means, they are in my home illegally and for that, they will be treated as armed intruders and dealt with in the same fashion. If you can't handle that, then you need to move to a socialist country where you would feel more comfortable. You know, where the cops break down your doors for thinking things other than what they are commanded to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
SB 366 Signed By Kansas Governor Today
Replies
2
Views
505
Kamicosmos
K
1
  • Locked
texas castle doctrine
Replies
24
Views
2K
mljdeckard
mljdeckard
B
  • Locked
MI - Dick Devos statement on Castle Doctrine
Replies
5
Views
356
Barbara
B
W
  • Locked
Castle Doctrine and Garages
2
Replies
27
Views
4K
joab
J
D
  • Locked
Alaska Governor Signs Vital Castle Doctrine Legislation!
Replies
14
Views
461
AirForceShooter
AirForceShooter
Back
Top