Right to resist Police bill in overhaul!

[j706]

Hmmm...just a few hours ago I kicked in a door on a place that a wanted person was hiding in. There were firearms in plain view from the outside of the place. Keep in mind this idiot is a domestic batterer x2. There was also a infant sleeping in a car seat by the front door. The mom and POS boyfriend fled to the rear of the place when we knocked and refused to answer, leaving the infant at the front door.. NP..called and got a warrant and entered the place 30 minutes later. We would have probably been justified entering under exigent circumstances due to the infant...maybe. But we decided to play it safe and just kept a eye on the infant and got the warrant. Seized a bunch of guns, got a infant out of a bad place and took three people into custody on a variety of charges. The new bill if passed will NOT prevent forced entry into a home. There will be some people that will believe it does.

In my 12 years of policing I have never been on a no knock warrant. Yea they happen. But not as often as people think they do, at least in the county I work.

The problem with the proposed new bill is there will be someone that will use it for a valid warrant service. Kinda like the people that think you can smoke someone for entering their home. The forget the reasonable force part. While I agree 100% that a person should be able to use force for illegal police entry, many people aren't capable of making the distinction. There could well be some dead citizens over this thing. I am kind of divided on the logic of the thing.

 

[finity]

If it gets the bad guy and brings our boys out, I'm all for it.

In that specific case then I believe the rest of us agree with you.

no knocks prevent a lot of tip offs and people shooting though doors, odd concept

But then there are the cases where an innocent person is killed or injured because the cops screw up & enter the wrong house or had bad information on the "bad guy" (IOW, the "bad guy" wasn't bad). How does THAT change your opinion?

You either accept no knock warrants along with the possibility of "collateral damage" or you say no no-knock warrants.

I personally don't accept the whole concept of "collateral damage" in planned police actions. This ISN'T Iraq. This is NOT a war zone.

The cops volunteered for the job. THEY are the ones who either need to accept the additional risk from their actions or quit. Innocent people should NEVER be placed at ANY risk whatsoever because the police think that their lives are somehow more important than those who they mistakenly kill in a No-knock gone wrong.

 

[lrahm]

And that's the whole problem with it all. I can think of numerous instances where people have thought I have overstepped my authority, but had not. If an officer is legally "in the right," and the person he has encountered thinks he is abusing his authority, what happens then? Are people who believe that the law is on their side going to view a reversal of this decision as allowing them to physically contest LE?
I can't tell you the amount of roadside lawyers roaming the streets, but there are certainly more than a few. There needs to be some clear middle ground to clarify when one has the right to resist law enforcement.

To give you an example, I pulled over a lady who failed to dim her bright lights on a 2 lane/2 way road a while back (note that I had given her a courtesy flash to dim her lights- which she didnt). I spoke to the woman and told her of the infraction, and I got cussed out like you have no idea. She argued that I had pulled her over illegally. If this decision is completely reversed, will she be of the belief that she could simply drive off since the stop was, in her mind, "illegal?"

I can't agree with you more. I am getting more "what did you stop me for" than I ever had. I don't stop cars unless they really need it. Same deal here, I stopped a person by running a red light by two seconds. They wanted to know what they did wrong. Their license was also suspended.

 

[finity]

I can't agree with you more. I am getting more "what did you stop me for" than I ever had. I don't stop cars unless they really need it. Same deal here, I stopped a person by running a red light by two seconds. They wanted to know what they did wrong. Their license was also suspended.

So are you saying that they DON'T have a Right to ask why they are being stopped?

Are you saying the oft-promoted "why am I being detained?" is not OK either?

I'm not saying this is referring to you (but it MIGHT be based your post) but we shouldn't have to meekly submit to any action that a cop takes against us.

I don't see ANY problem with the questioning of "why?". If you stopped them for a valid reason you have the OBLIGATION to answer the question.

 

[lrahm]

So are you saying that they DON'T have a Right to ask why they are being stopped?

Are you saying the oft-promoted "why am I being detained?" is not OK either?

I'm not saying this is referring to you (but it MIGHT be based your post) but we shouldn't have to meekly submit to any action that a cop takes against us.

I don't see ANY problem with the questioning of "why?". If you stopped them for a valid reason you have the OBLIGATION to answer the question.

No, I can be asked all day long. I will give them the reason with no problem. I usually open my conversation by saying "do you know why I am stopping you". I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. They know in fact that I didn't stop them to have a "chitty" with them and that they probably have done something wrong. It concerns me when I stop a person and my computer shows me that they have been stopped 10 times before for similar infractions. I will then explain my reason why and give them a ticket or not.

I was going to comment on your previous post and decided not to, but while I am here.. Yes, every officer knows what they are getting into the day the took an oath and placed a badge on. I was a liberal with intentions of saving the world. It can't be done. As far as saying "it's not a war zone", you haven't been to some of the places where I've been. I do respect your views and comments. I have repped you several times for good points. But, on the subject of "no-knocks", it's a tool that has to be used. I have been on very few. They only come when there is a high risk of danger for the officers and public's safety. I did add public because I still have dreams of helping people.

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

Im reading through all the comments, and i think you guys don't really understand what this law is about. The bill is targeting off-duty officers and on-duty officers without warrants. Mainly people on their own personal property. It has nothing to do with traffic stops or anything like that.

Example: I know a few of you have been stopped by an Off-duty officer asking about your OC'd pistol. If you tried to walk away and the officer tried to detain you, this bill would allow you legally fight back.

Example: If an On-duty officer tried to enter your house without permission, you could legally fight back. <-----This example is the biggest target.

For those of you who dont know, this bill was proposed after an Evansville man was tazed and charged with misdemeanor assault and resisting after he tried to keep an officer from illegally entering his house. The bill has mainly those people in mind.

And for the LEO's on the forum saying the bill would only make your job more dangerous, NO! Listen, i love you guys to death, but you cant hide from the facts. There ARE cops out there who think they can do ANYTHING they want because they have a badge. This bill is a wonderful thing, it would allow people like you and I to finally be able to show those people that what they are doing is AGAINST THE LAW. If the officer got physical while trying to do something Illegal, if the bill were passed, we would now have the right to push back

 

[lrahm]

Im reading through all the comments, and i think you guys don't really understand what this law is about. The bill is targeting off-duty officers and on-duty officers without warrants. Mainly people on their own personal property. It has nothing to do with traffic stops or anything like that.

Example: I know a few of you have been stopped by an Off-duty officer asking about your OC'd pistol. If you tried to walk away and the officer tried to detain you, this bill would allow you legally fight back.

Example: If an On-duty officer tried to enter your house without permission, you could legally fight back. <-----This example is the biggest target.

For those of you who dont know, this bill was proposed after an Evansville man was tazed and charged with misdemeanor assault and resisting after he tried to keep an officer from illegally entering his house. The bill has mainly those people in mind.

I am pretty familiar with the incident. I have a pretty good knowledge of it. The officers were obligated to go into the residence to check the welfare of the woman. She was inside screaming and telling the guy to open the door. Her name was on the lease also.

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

I am pretty familiar with the incident. I have a pretty good knowledge of it. The officers were obligated to go into the residence to check the welfare of the woman. She was inside screaming and telling the guy to open the door. Her name was on the lease also.

Okay, here's my issue with that. If that was true, than why am i reading everywhere else that they were trying to enter "illegally"? If her name was on the lease, then it wouldn't be illegal.

 

[lrahm]

Okay, here's this issue with that. If that was true, than why am i reading everywhere else that they were trying to enter "illegally"? If her name was on the lease, then it wouldn't be illegal.

This is a case where the two were fighting. He was leaving and she was up in the apartment. The police arrive and gets things calmed down. The guys then goes back into the apartment where they start arguing again and she is calling for help. He has locked the door. She tell her boyfriend(?), "just open the door".

 

[Titanium_Frost]

This is my only thought that I will express in this thread and BOTH sides of the coin should listen to it:

Laws do not affect people's behavior.

There. It has been said. This LAW will not change a thing, nor will it not getting passed will. It only affects the CONSEQUENCES of actions, specifically already illegal actions which should not be happening anyway. It does not change police powers or authority and it does not give people free reign to resist cops.

It only acknowledges that Hoosiers have a right to resist illegal actions EVEN if they are committed by an officer. As for the example of driving away from an infraction ticket please explain how that even correlates at all with the focus of this legislation? If someone drives off, arrest them just like you would anyway. I don't see the issue here. Hell most people don't even know it when the law changes (civilian and LEO alike) so I really don't understand why you think everything will change based on this law.

 

[Mr. Habib]

This is my only thought that I will express in this thread and BOTH sides of the coin should listen to it:

Laws do not affect people's behavior.

There. It has been said. This LAW will not change a thing, nor will it not getting passed will. It only affects the CONSEQUENCES of actions, specifically already illegal actions which should not be happening anyway. It does not change police powers or authority and it does not give people free reign to resist cops.

It only acknowledges that Hoosiers have a right to resist illegal actions EVEN if they are committed by an officer. As for the example of driving away from an infraction ticket please explain how that even correlates at all with the focus of this legislation? If someone drives off, arrest them just like you would anyway. I don't see the issue here. Hell most people don't even know it when the law changes (civilian and LEO alike) so I really don't understand why you think everything will change based on this law.

Stop using facts and logic, you're just going to confuse people.

 

[88GT]

And that's the whole problem with it all. I can think of numerous instances where people have thought I have overstepped my authority, but had not. If an officer is legally "in the right," and the person he has encountered thinks he is abusing his authority, what happens then? Are people who believe that the law is on their side going to view a reversal of this decision as allowing them to physically contest LE?
I can't tell you the amount of roadside lawyers roaming the streets, but there are certainly more than a few. There needs to be some clear middle ground to clarify when one has the right to resist law enforcement.

To give you an example, I pulled over a lady who failed to dim her bright lights on a 2 lane/2 way road a while back (note that I had given her a courtesy flash to dim her lights- which she didnt). I spoke to the woman and told her of the infraction, and I got cussed out like you have no idea. She argued that I had pulled her over illegally. If this decision is completely reversed, will she be of the belief that she could simply drive off since the stop was, in her mind, "illegal?"

Respectfully, cry me a freakin' river.

If I have to take it up the tailpipe and let LE wantonly enter my property without a right of defense having as my only recourse the courts after the fact, you'll find no sympathy with me if the populace decides to take matters into their hands and determine what's legal or not. Because that's exactly what I have to put up with on my end.

Same standard, my friend. Same standard.

 

[88GT]

The problem with the proposed new bill is there will be someone that will use it for a valid warrant service. Kinda like the people that think you can smoke someone for entering their home. The forget the reasonable force part. While I agree 100% that a person should be able to use force for illegal police entry, many people aren't capable of making the distinction. There could well be some dead citizens over this thing. I am kind of divided on the logic of the thing.

Here's the thing: prior to the SC ruling, the right to resist had always existed. You make it sound like this is suddenly releasing the flood gates of resistance and cops will be bleeding on doorway thresholds because every Tom, Dick, and Harry is going to start blasting away the minute there's a knock at the door.

People have always failed to make the distinction between illegal police entry and legitimate. The SC ruling wasn't ever going to stop the bad guys from resisting. Only the good guys, and only when they actually had the right. The only people this ruling hurt were the law-abiding. And the only thing that's gonna change with this bill is that things are going to go right back to where they were.

We'll ignore for the sake of avoiding muddying the waters that this ruling without the bill reinstating the right to resist actually increases the risk of harm to the citizenry by making it practically impossible for homeowners to distinguish in a split second if the bastards breaking down the front door yelling "Police" are in fact police or the neighborhood gangbangers taking advantage of a bull**** ruling.

Give me one good reason why a citizen shouldn't be allowed to resist illegal entry in his home, regardless of the person attempt to gain that entry? Frankly, I think the risk of a bullet penetrating flesh ought to be a real deterrent to everybody who attempts to invade a property.

 

[rooster3654]

Here's the thing: prior to the SC ruling, the right to resist had always existed. You make it sound like this is suddenly releasing the flood gates of resistance and cops will be bleeding on doorway thresholds because every Tom, Dick, and Harry is going to start blasting away the minute there's a knock at the door.

People have always failed to make the distinction between illegal police entry and legitimate. The SC ruling wasn't ever going to stop the bad guys from resisting. Only the good guys, and only when they actually had the right. The only people this ruling hurt were the law-abiding. And the only thing that's gonna change with this bill is that things are going to go right back to where they were.

We'll ignore for the sake of avoiding muddying the waters that this ruling without the bill reinstating the right to resist actually increases the risk of harm to the citizenry by making it practically impossible for homeowners to distinguish in a split second if the bastards breaking down the front door yelling "Police" are in fact police or the neighborhood gangbangers taking advantage of a bull**** ruling.

Give me one good reason why a citizen shouldn't be allowed to resist illegal entry in his home, regardless of the person attempt to gain that entry? Frankly, I think the risk of a bullet penetrating flesh ought to be a real deterrent to everybody who attempts to invade a property.

I live in Vincennes currently. Over the last couple weeks there have been robberies involving armed men busting through the door of a home and robbing people at gunpoint. Am I really to be expected to not grab the weapon that sits on the coffee table in front of me because they take advantage of the current court ruling and yell "police!" after they bust through the door? Even the idea that a situation like that could occur scares the hell out of me. The current ruling leaves law abiding citizens at risk of criminals taking advantage of the fact tht we are law abiding. I'm a law abiding citizen and I'm certain I have done nothing that would be cause for LE to bust down my door. If they did I would I would comply completely as that is the current rule even if I knew that the entry was illegal. Thats does't make it right though. We need our rights re instated with this bill.The law abiding citizens will always do everything they can to be law abiding and the bad guys are always going to resist LE and try to hurt those law abiding citizens. No bill will ever change that,certainly not this one.

 

[mrortega]

I can't think of many worse scenerios than hearing the door being smashed and someone yelling, "police!" I know I haven't done anything wrong. My wife and I have never used drugs, sold drugs, beat each other up or anything else that would cause us to have to endure a no-knock entry. What if I shoot the second the door breaks open. I'll die and probably some cops will too. It's too late if someone negligently got the wrong address, sent the police to the wrong address or whatever else caused the problem. I don't know what kind of disciplinary measures have been taken against commanders or higher ups when those things have happened but I hope they paid out the wazoo.

 

[billmyn]

seems to me that if more was done to prevent wrongful entry by LE then this wouldn't be an issue . but sadly it is . i think that even a LEO in his home could be on the receiving end of this. would you still say that its ok to make these kind of no knock entries , i am a law biding citizen and respect every LEO out there for doing there job , but there has to be lines drawn on what is legal and what is not . and just because you say police doesnt mean diddly. i want to see badges and uniforms before i believe it . wouldn't you

 

[JoshuaRWhite]

Not to be an a** but if I know I haven't done anything wrong and my doors get busted in someone is catching Hornady TAP Buckshot.

 

[JoshuaRWhite]

I can't think of many worse scenerios than hearing the door being smashed and someone yelling, "police!" I know I haven't done anything wrong. My wife and I have never used drugs, sold drugs, beat each other up or anything else that would cause us to have to endure a no-knock entry. What if I shoot the second the door breaks open. I'll die and probably some cops will too. It's too late if someone negligently got the wrong address, sent the police to the wrong address or whatever else caused the problem. I don't know what kind of disciplinary measures have been taken against commanders or higher ups when those things have happened but I hope they paid out the wazoo.

My point exactly. I walk the house with my loaded .45 and sit with a loaded 870 less than 2 feet from me. If my doors get busted in I'm defending my life.

 

[rooster3654]

Not to be an a** but if I know I haven't done anything wrong and my doors get busted in someone is catching Hornady TAP Buckshot.

That was my point from the beginning. This bill is needed to protect citizens. In the event that they protect themselves from an unlawful entry or police mistake, however rare they might be.

 

[JoshuaRWhite]

That was my point from the beginning. This bill is needed to protect citizens. In the event that they protect themselves from an unlawful entry or police mistake, however rare they might be.

Completely agree.