Right to resist Police bill in overhaul!

[A 7.62 Exodus]

Ind. Bill On Right To Resist Police Faces Overhaul - Cincinnati News Story - WLWT Cincinnati

My favorite quote in this article is, "We want to make sure that clearly officers who are acting beyond their duties or illegally don't get any protection"

Best quote EVER!

 

[rooster3654]

Does anyone know if police here are allowed to use no-knock warrents? If they are I think that would be the only credible worry that they would have about the bill. I have read the bill and It's pretty well written to protect people's rights and also not put officers in danger of everyone resisting them.

 

[mrjarrell]

Yes, police in Indiana can use "no-knock" warrants. How often they use them I don't know. You do have to remember that having a warrant doesn't necessarily make for a good entry. Many warrants have been issued for innocent people, guilty of no crimes.

 

[rooster3654]

Yes, police in Indiana can use "no-knock" warrants. How often they use them I don't know. You do have to remember that having a warrant doesn't necessarily make for a good entry. Many warrants have been issued for innocent people, guilty of no crimes.

I thought they could but couldn't remember. I do not agree with the use of "no-knock" warrants, however that is the only issue i can see that they could have with it.

 

[serpicostraight]

Does anyone know if police here are allowed to use no-knock warrents? If they are I think that would be the only credible worry that they would have about the bill. I have read the bill and It's pretty well written to protect people's rights and also not put officers in danger of everyone resisting them.

you do realize if the tacklebury goon squad shows up a warrant is the last thing they care about.

 

[Whosyer]

Yes, police in Indiana can use "no-knock" warrants. How often they use them I don't know. You do have to remember that having a warrant doesn't necessarily make for a good entry. Many warrants have been issued for innocent people, guilty of no crimes.[/QUOTE]


And sometimes they are issued for guilty people, and served at the wrong house.

 

[mrjarrell]

And sometimes they are issued for guilty people, and served at the wrong house.

Yep.

 

[rooster3654]

Perhaps they should just get rid of no-knock warrants as well. Then there is no chance of serving one going very badly. As I stated before though the no-knock warrant is the only thing I can see that the Law enforcement community having against this, well and a bad explanation of it in the news

 

[Kutnupe14]

Ind. Bill On Right To Resist Police Faces Overhaul - Cincinnati News Story - WLWT Cincinnati

My favorite quote in this article is, "We want to make sure that clearly officers who are acting beyond their duties or illegally don't get any protection"

Best quote EVER!

Here's the problem, who in the immediacy of the moment, makes that determination if both parties are at odds?

Now if an officer is clearly (as I will note the quote indicates), and is intentionally acting (criminally) beyond the scope of their duties, they do not deserve protection.

 

[lrahm]

Here's the problem, who in the immediacy of the moment, makes that determination if both parties are at odds?

Now if an officer is clearly (as I will note the quote indicates), and is intentionally acting (criminally) beyond the scope of their duties, they do not deserve protection.

I think that's pretty clear.

 

[Sgt7330]

Perhaps they should just get rid of no-knock warrants as well. Then there is no chance of serving one going very badly.

No-knock warrants are requested and must be approved through the judge. Special circumstances must exist that can be spelled out for one to be granted. Yes, I am a policeman. Yes, I have been there on no knock warrants.
I cannot speak for other areas and communities, but the ones we did with no knock were because of the major threat (armed, made threats of using guns on police, high risk like arresting armed robbery suspect, etc). You cannot reasonably walk up to the door, knock, and wait for the bullets to come at you.
That being said, I hate seeing when one goes wrong and the police end up at the wrong house, wrong person or whatever. I dont know what the right answer is here other than solid, good work prior to even considering warrant service. First and foremost is protect the rights of people, but there are times a no-knock is necessary.

 

[lrahm]

Perhaps they should just get rid of no-knock warrants as well. Then there is no chance of serving one going very badly. As I stated before though the no-knock warrant is the only thing I can see that the Law enforcement community having against this, well and a bad explanation of it in the news

No, if you have ever been on the end where the officers are you would disagree with your statement. Yes, I do not want to see anyone (officers included) hurt or the wrong address' door kicked in.

 

[WC Deer Hunter]

Yes, police in Indiana can use "no-knock" warrants. How often they use them I don't know. You do have to remember that having a warrant doesn't necessarily make for a good entry. Many warrants have been issued for innocent people, guilty of no crimes.

And sometimes they are issued for guilty people, and served at the wrong house.

Yeah, and WITH CHAINSAWS!

 

[rooster3654]

No, if you have ever been on the end where the officers are you would disagree with your statement. Yes, I do not want to see anyone (officers included) hurt or the wrong address' door kicked in.

I am not a Leo.I was just stating that this bill should not put leo's in any more danger than they already are. The criminals are still going to shoot at you no matter what te law says. My example of a no knock warrant that was served at the wrong residence was a situation where a Leo might be placed in danger unnecessarily. It would also lead to the prosecution of a citizen who thought they were in the right defending themselves. this is a potential problem the bill creates and it shouldn't be left as such a grey area.

 

[lrahm]

I am not a Leo.I was just stating that this bill should not put leo's in any more danger than they already are. The criminals are still going to shoot at you no matter what te law says. My example of a no knock warrant that was served at the wrong residence was a situation where a Leo might be placed in danger unnecessarily. It would also lead to the prosecution of a citizen who thought they were in the right defending themselves. this is a potential problem the bill creates and it shouldn't be left as such a grey area.

The "no-knocks" that I have been involved in were essential for the safety of the officers themselves. I know that there will be those "nay" sayers but I want to go home at night. I've been shot at several time and it scares the hell out of me.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

No-knock warrants are requested and must be approved through the judge. Special circumstances must exist that can be spelled out for one to be granted. Yes, I am a policeman. Yes, I have been there on no knock warrants.
I cannot speak for other areas and communities, but the ones we did with no knock were because of the major threat (armed, made threats of using guns on police, high risk like arresting armed robbery suspect, etc). You cannot reasonably walk up to the door, knock, and wait for the bullets to come at you.

I hate to correct you on this, but you are incorrect about it having to be approved by the judge. A INSC case stated that they can do a no knock based on "exigent" circumstances even when the "exigent" circumstances are known at the time they applied for the warrant.

Justices rule on 'no-knock' warrant executions | The Indiana Lawyer

How did they used to major risk warrants before no knocks? Did LEOs say that it wasn't reasonable and that they wouldn't do it? There is a post on here by LibertySanders who talks about the difference. And yes they just walked up to the door and knocked.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...l_discussion/118937-ah_the_good_old_days.html

No, if you have ever been on the end where the officers are you would disagree with your statement. Yes, I do not want to see anyone (officers included) hurt or the wrong address' door kicked in.

While I wouldn't mind seeing no knocks go the way of the dodo. I do understand using them for some (read very very few) warrants. And wouldn't mind the very limited reasons to be codified into law.

Personally I do not want to see any more children killed from a flashbang tossed into a window, or shots fired through a window. Or dogs shot, over about 1/4 oz of weed and no weapons found iirc.

 

[88GT]

Here's the problem, who in the immediacy of the moment, makes that determination if both parties are at odds?

Now if an officer is clearly (as I will note the quote indicates), and is intentionally acting (criminally) beyond the scope of their duties, they do not deserve protection.

Let the courts decide after the fact. Isn't that what the citizens are told when the agents of the state abuse their power/authority to the detriment of the citizen? I'm not being flippant.

Perhaps they should just get rid of no-knock warrants as well. Then there is no chance of serving one going very badly. As I stated before though the no-knock warrant is the only thing I can see that the Law enforcement community having against this, well and a bad explanation of it in the news

The problem is that there is no practical difference between a no-knock and a knock when dynamic entry is planned. There are about 2 seconds max between the "knock and announce" portion of the execution and the entry portion. Who really thinks the property owner or occupant has had sufficient time to respond to anything but his own fart in that time? If it isn't a no-knock, dynamic entry should not be a part of it. Period.

I've timed it. It takes about 15 seconds minimum for me to get to the front door from my basement, and that's assuming I heard the knock. I might get it done in 7 second from my bedroom if I hurry, but anything other than the office or kitchen will take more than the 2-3 seconds between the knock-and-announce and entry. So instead of being given a real opportunity to comply, I'm now faced with a very real WTF and strangers with guns coming through my door. My dog is going ape-**** and I'm trying take cover, find and corral the kids, and draw my own firearm in an effort to give myself more time to get it all done. Of course, we all know how that'll end.

If it isn't a no-knock, it should be a required 30-second minimum before entry. And at least one lead team member needs to be wearing video or audio recording devices to confirm the delay. Any tampering with or failure to produce such proof will result in a complete tossing of any and all evidence procured in the search. And restitution for any damages to life and property will be automatic...out of the personal pockets of the team members involved and their commanding officers, NOT out of city coffers.

In my perfect world anyway.

 

[Bill of Rights]

It's not on the State website yet, but SB 1 passed out of committee 9-3 today. I'm not sure what (if any) amendments were made to it. On to the full House!

 

[Vic_Mackey]

If it gets the bad guy and brings our boys out, I'm all for it. From personal experience both overseas and here (42nd & Post is actually about the same as overseas lol) no knocks prevent a lot of tip offs and people shooting though doors, odd concept

 

[Kutnupe14]

Let the courts decide after the fact. Isn't that what the citizens are told when the agents of the state abuse their power/authority to the detriment of the citizen? I'm not being flippant.

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?"