No right to resist entry by LEOs

[E5RANGER375]

the biggest reason police (local and federal) and military dont kick in ALL peoples doors at all hours of the night is because of the second ammendment. If the govt thought they could get away with doing it without a fight they would do it everyday. thats what keeps America different. and you can argue and say "but the good cops would not do this" and I will tell you with certainty that they would replace them with mindless ****s who would. there are some cops that would and are doing it now. we just hear about the ones who are caught. but unless we start throwing the WILD OUT OF CONTROL COPS in jail, then it will keep happening in "isolated incidents" (yeah right). not all cops are bad, but thats why we must severely punish those who are. as of now most of the stories i see regarding dirty cops, they walk free and even keep their jobs a lot of the time. im not singling out cops, im looking for equal treatment for all. just like ALL citizens arent bad and we should severely punish the ones who are. if we were more harsh with punishment in this country then we would have less problems. you steal, then we should brand you with a hot iron. you murder, you should be shot or hung. you rape or molest, you should have your genitals ripped off (man and woman), and then be shot. your a cop and you have an oops and kill a kid in a swat entry then you hang too. just the same. when people are in fear of harsh punishment for ****ing up, then guess what? they stop ****ing up.

also we need to hold the politicians accountible for putting the "brass" in place who make these failed unconstitutional department policies. some officers take their oath to the constitution seriously and actualy have read it. other cops just go along with their departments rules or training mindlessly because they rely or trust the department to have it right by the constitution (the ultimate law). just like many cops dont know dick about OC or CC, only what some tard instructor at the academy taught them wrong (or nothing at all) who probly hates citizens who carry.

 

[mrjarrell]

No matter what this court has said, you still have the right to resist unlawful arrest. If they've decided to kick in your doors and you've committed no crimes then they are going to attempt to arrest you. The courts have already spoken to the matter.

 

[J_Wales]

Liberty is not killed over night. It is killed slowly, cell by cell so that few notice until it is too late.

Without a doubt, we are evolving to a police state.

The attitude towards Liberty that seems prevalent in our republic today can be seen in this quote from the judge ruling on this case.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said.

Reading this ruling, I was reminded of something our Founding Fathers had to say when they wrote:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

I will not be one to tolerate a police state.

These progressive statist pigs can go to Hell and burn there for eternity.

 

[CVMA544]

the biggest reason police (local and federal) and military dont kick in ALL peoples doors at all hours of the night is because of the second ammendment. If the govt thought they could get away with doing it without a fight they would do it everyday. thats what keeps America different. and you can argue and say "but the good cops would not do this" and I will tell you with certainty that they would replace them with mindless ****s who would. there are some cops that would and are doing it now. we just hear about the ones who are caught. but unless we start throwing the WILD OUT OF CONTROL COPS in jail, then it will keep happening in "isolated incidents" (yeah right). not all cops are bad, but thats why we must severely punish those who are. as of now most of the stories i see regarding dirty cops, they walk free and even keep their jobs a lot of the time. im not singling out cops, im looking for equal treatment for all. just like ALL citizens arent bad and we should severely punish the ones who are. if we were more harsh with punishment in this country then we would have less problems. you steal, then we should brand you with a hot iron. you murder, you should be shot or hung. you rape or molest, you should have your genitals ripped off (man and woman), and then be shot. your a cop and you have an oops and kill a kid in a swat entry then you hang too. just the same. when people are in fear of harsh punishment for ****ing up, then guess what? they stop ****ing up.

also we need to hold the politicians accountible for putting the "brass" in place who make these failed unconstitutional department policies. some officers take their oath to the constitution seriously and actualy have read it. other cops just go along with their departments rules or training mindlessly because they rely or trust the department to have it right by the constitution (the ultimate law). just like many cops dont know dick about OC or CC, only what some tard instructor at the academy taught them wrong (or nothing at all) who probly hates citizens who carry.

I agree LEO's that break the law should be prosecuted, they are suppossed to set an example, too many times they get a slap on the wrist.

And those who accept what ever training from what ever view point the dept provides need to think a little more about what is being provided.

SPLC sends their rag to most if not all depts, most of what it contains is slanted to the extreme left, yet this is provided as valid intel to working officer who will accept it as gospel.

 

[CVMA544]

Liberty is not killed over night. It is killed slowly, cell by cell so that few notice until it is too late.

Without a doubt, we are evolving to a police state.

The attitude towards Liberty that seems prevalent in our republic today can be seen in this quote from the judge ruling on this case.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said.

Reading this ruling, I was reminded of something our Founding Fathers had to say when they wrote:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

I will not be one to tolerate a police state.

These progressive statist pigs can go to Hell and burn there for eternity.

But the govt has to protect us with things like the Patriot Act, National Healthcare, etc.

The sheeple are all for the cradle to grave govt taking care of us, and until they wake up things will continue to slip away.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No matter what this court has said, you still have the right to resist unlawful arrest. If they've decided to kick in your doors and you've committed no crimes then they are going to attempt to arrest you. The courts have already spoken to the matter.

When you say unlawful are you speaking in terms of the officers knowing it's unlawful, or in terms of an officer believing that his actions are lawful, but is incorrect?

 

[Prometheus]

There was a question a few weeks ago about being in a police state.

I'd say this settles the argument.

Yes, in Indiana, we do live in a police state.

 

[Kutnupe14]

...and apparently consume a fair amount of tinfoil too

 

[J_Wales]

But the govt has to protect us with things like the Patriot Act, National Healthcare, etc.

The sheeple are all for the cradle to grave govt taking care of us, and until they wake up things will continue to slip away.

I will take care of myself, thank you.

The nanny state can bug off.

 

[E5RANGER375]

i guess the best advice would be to reenforce your doors and windows. they keep a knockin but they cant come in. lol

police assaulting a house is pretty retarded anyways. they put everyone in unnecessary danger.

 

[CVMA544]

i guess the best advice would be to reenforce your doors and windows. they keep a knockin but they cant come in. lol

police assaulting a house is pretty retarded anyways. they put everyone in unnecessary danger.

Great idea, then they can make law about criminal reinforcement of a dwelling to prevent unlawful police entry punishable by jail time for those who tried to protect themselves??!!

 

[88GT]

When you say unlawful are you speaking in terms of the officers knowing it's unlawful, or in terms of an officer believing that his actions are lawful, but is incorrect?

I can't speak for Ranger, but I'd answer a qualified "both."

Unlawful is unlawful. I shouldn't have to take it up the tailpipe just because the LEO didn't know the law he was supposed to be acting under. I realize the courts have ruled differently. I don't give a rat's ass what the courts have ruled: I shouldn't have to be subjected to unlawful actions against my liberties by agents of the state at any time.

The qualifier is that I know not all circumstances fit into the black or white circumstances. That doesn't mean I accept it. It just means I understand it exists and why it does.

 

[GeneralCarver]

I agree with the comments here that this is unconstitutional and also against our Natural Rights. Just because someone is a police officer doesn't mean they have the right to home invade because they feel they need to. However, I think guys what we're seeing is that this is a very small step in a much larger campagin attacking your 4th amendment rights. Its not going to stop here. The oppressive regime must establish the necessary legal and police infrastructure to sustain itself when resistance from the populace begins. I think we are seeing the early stages of development in this area. Just my two cents. Any way you look at it, its not good. Why do we need to change this? I mean, in how many cases is this going to make a difference? I would be willing to bet that most people ALREADY don't physically resist police on illegal entries because they don't want a physical confrontation.

 

[Fish609]

It's safe to say we all agree in this instance the officer was probably in the right. The thing we are arguing is the smearing of the 4th amendment of the united states. The judges took it upon themselves to destroy the letter and spirit of the law.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I can't speak for Ranger, but I'd answer a qualified "both."

Unlawful is unlawful. I shouldn't have to take it up the tailpipe just because the LEO didn't know the law he was supposed to be acting under. I realize the courts have ruled differently. I don't give a rat's ass what the courts have ruled: I shouldn't have to be subjected to unlawful actions against my liberties by agents of the state at any time.

The qualifier is that I know not all circumstances fit into the black or white circumstances. That doesn't mean I accept it. It just means I understand it exists and why it does.

Ok, lets run with that. Let's say an officer attempts to pull you over because he thought your vehicle was driving recklessly. Unfortunately, the officer got it wrong, and it was another car that looked exactly like yours. The officer by attempting to detain you, is unlawful in his actions. If you knew 100% that you had done nothing wrong, do you stop, or do you keep going (RLE-motor vehicle-felony); because the officer has no legal right to detain you?

 

[ckcollins2003]

Ok, lets run with that. Let's say an officer attempts to pull you over because he thought your vehicle was driving recklessly. Unfortunately, the officer got it wrong, and it was another car that looked exactly like yours. The officer by attempting to detain you, is unlawful in his actions. If you knew 100% that you had done nothing wrong, do you stop, or do you keep going (RLE-motor vehicle-felony); because the officer has no legal right to detain you?

Shouldn't the officer have the mental capacity to actually get behind the car that's driving recklessly? If not then how the hell is he able to carry a firearm when my 10 year old cousin can't?

Besides that, your vehicle and your home are 2 completely different things... you can't shoot someone who is stealing your vehicle unless they try to hit you with it or possess a firearm. You CAN shoot and kill someone who has entered your home unlawfully, well, you used to be able to, now you gotta check them for a badge first.

Edit: Your life isn't exactly threatened the same when being pulled over as it is when someone just ups and walks into your house. You know you are being pulled over when you are being pulled over. When someone enters your home unannounced, no matter who you are, if you don't know them, you feel threatened and violated. I don't care if it's the police or anyone else. Nobody should be able to enter your home unannounced for no reason.

 

[88GT]

Ok, lets run with that. Let's say an officer attempts to pull you over because he thought your vehicle was driving recklessly. Unfortunately, the officer got it wrong, and it was another car that looked exactly like yours. The officer by attempting to detain you, is unlawful in his actions. If you knew 100% that you had done nothing wrong, do you stop, or do you keep going (RLE-motor vehicle-felony); because the officer has no legal right to detain you?

Why are you even asking this? It has no relevance to the scenario under this the ruling being discussed was made, nor does it have any with the comment you bolded.

 

[ckcollins2003]

Exactly, now lets look at something that actually did happen where this law might change the outcome.

The law enforcement agency comes up to a house to serve a no-knock warrant. The owner of the house, not knowing it's the police, hears them outside, gets on his staircase with his .22, puts a small table in front of him for cover, and dials 911. He proceeds to tell the operator that there are people trying to break into his house. He says, "Get the police here now because if they come through that door I'm going to shoot them."

The officers, without identifying themselves as police proceeded to ram the door and enter the house. The owner of the house shot the first 2 in the head before he realized they were police officers. He then stopped and was arrested. He received no penalty because the officers were at the wrong house.

Would this law that is put in place say that he resisted "unlawful" entry by a police officer, therefore making him subject to murder charges?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Shouldn't the officer have the mental capacity to actually get behind the car that's driving recklessly? If not then how the hell is he able to carry a firearm when my 10 year old cousin can't?

Besides that, your vehicle and your home are 2 completely different things... you can't shoot someone who is stealing your vehicle unless they try to hit you with it or possess a firearm. You CAN shoot and kill someone who has entered your home unlawfully, well, you used to be able to, now you gotta check them for a badge first.

Edit: Your life isn't exactly threatened the same when being pulled over as it is when someone just ups and walks into your house. You know you are being pulled over when you are being pulled over. When someone enters your home unannounced, no matter who you are, if you don't know them, you feel threatened and violated. I don't care if it's the police or anyone else. Nobody should be able to enter your home unannounced for no reason.

Why are you even asking this? It has no relevance to the scenario under this the ruling being discussed was made, nor does it have any with the comment you bolded.

I'm detecting the inability to answer the question... and though the filler looks nice, that still does not change that you guys are very untactfuly avoiding the question.

So I'll give you the bare bones of the argument again. Can/Should you physically resist the unlawful actions of police in all instances?

 

[ckcollins2003]

I'm detecting the inability to answer the question... and though the filler looks nice, that still does not change that you guys are very untactfuly avoiding the question.

So I'll give you the bare bones of the argument again. Can/Should you physically resist the unlawful actions of police in all instances?

I feel if it is unlawful for them to act in such a way then it should be deemed as UNLAWFUL. Without probable cause I feel they have every right to enter my home as I do theirs.

If I walked into a police officers home, would I be arrested or shot? Most likely. Who's to say it shouldn't have the same effect on them?

Tell us why you think an officer should have the right to violate our rights as citizens...

Edit: Should this guy have resisted physically?
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZxeSaWcB60[/ame]

He didn't do anything illegal and was beaten and tazed by a police officer. I feel the citizen had every right to resist physically, that is if you actually want to talk about ALL INSTANCES instead of just what is at hand. We are talking about coming into peoples homes UNLAWFULLY. Not running from the cops or beating women.

Lets try and stick to the subject and see where we get rather than pull in a bunch of other situations that don't pertain to the matter at hand.