Robin Of House Hill Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Oh so if I point a gun at a police officer first, there is no practical way for him or her to defend themselves?Have you ever heard of a single police officer doing a no knock entry?I dont want the police to shoot me at all, especially if they point their guns at me due to a fukup.People rarely do.If the police want equality with citizens when the trials and charges start then there should be equality when the incident occurs.I can't decipher that.So police can legally point there guns at me and I have no right to use a gun to defend myself from that.What world are you living in? If you point a gun at a cop, don't expect to survive.Equality would be allowing the suspect to point his gun back and whoever shoots first is the criminalLife isn't fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daario's*before*Snows Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Have you ever heard of a single police officer doing a no knock entry?I have witnessed single police officers point their gun at people who were not commiting a crime and were later proven to not be criminals.What if its 5 police officers? And there are 5 armed law abiding citizens pointing their guns back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daario's*before*Snows Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Life isn't fair. I dont think police or citizens can use this defense in a court of law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 16, 2013 Author Share Posted January 16, 2013 Baxus,By your logic Police have the power to enter your home, shoot your dog as a tactical threat, handcuff you and your family, search the premisis without a valid warrant, and your course of action is to sue them after the fact where they will claim "Oops, shit happens.". And don't forget this can happen repeatedly to the same home. Still cool with police having that much power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Of House Hill Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I have witnessed single police officers point their gun at people who were not commiting a crime and were later proven to not be criminals.Please elaborate.What if its 5 police officers? And there are 5 armed law abiding citizens pointing their guns back?Between 8 and 10 dead bodies.I dont think police or citizens can use this defense in a court of lawLooking at this again:Equality would be allowing the suspect to point his gun back and whoever shoots first is the criminalSo far out of touch with reality, it is unbelievable. If you point a gun at a cop and he shoots you, he will never be convicted of a crime and will most likely not even be charged with one. You may not like it, but it will never change. Police officers are given certain powers you are not. Learn to live with it, or don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daario's*before*Snows Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Please elaborate.Between 8 and 10 dead bodies.Looking at this again:So far out of touch with reality, it is unbelievable. If you point a gun at a cop and he shoots you, he will never be convicted of a crime and will most likely not even be charged with one. You may not like it, but it will never change. Police officers are given certain powers you are not. Learn to live with it, or don't.I question your ability to predict the future or accurately negate the public's ability to effect changes in the way that law enforcement will forever conduct themselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 16, 2013 Author Share Posted January 16, 2013 SB,I'm saying that self defense shouldn't exuse officers who shoot someone defending their homes from officers who are not at the correct house when executing a warrant. I'm saying, further, that "no-knock" warrants are bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Of House Hill Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I question your ability to predict the future or accurately negate the public's ability to effect changes in the way that law enforcement will forever conduct themselvesYou lost me at "the public's ability", lowest common denominator decision making isn't worth the effort.Type away, but I'm taking a nap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daario's*before*Snows Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 You lost me at "the public's ability", lowest common denominator decision making isn't worth the effort.Type away, but I'm taking a nap.So i take it you dont think the public should be allowed to vote on anything?Lowest common denominator isnt worth the effort? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daario's*before*Snows Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 There seems to be more importance placed on "getting the guy" and making sure there is enough evidence to convict than there is for the safety of anybody who may be near.Not sure if thats good or bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 16, 2013 Author Share Posted January 16, 2013 SB,Don't get me wrong, Scot, I agree that these are horrible situations, and that they shouldn't happen. I just don't see how people defending their homes when it does happen being able to make it anything other than much worse, for everyone involved.I'm not saying it makes things better. I'm saying that responding to an armed incursion into your home, that has no legal justification to take place, should not be subject to legal sanction. The LEOs are in the wrong and the person with a gun, baseball bat, or whatever isn't acting illegally when they act to oppose that incursion and defend their family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturn Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I just had to take my biannual training on affidavits so I'm in a good position to answer this. When I sign an affidavit on behalf of my bank, I am swearing under oath (and in the presence of a witness no less) that I have personal knowledge of the facts contained within the affidavit, and that they are all true. If I am lying, I can be charged with perjury and fraud. Serious question. Police swear with hand raised also when obtaining a search warrant from a judge. I emphasized "lying" above. If there is a typo, such as getting an address wrong, then the affiant swears to the affidavit, is that actually considered, "lying"? I mean there is a difference to swearing to an affidavit having purposely lied about an address and swearing to an affidavit but you left out a number. I personally don't think a lawyer would ever be charged with perjury or fraud if he swore to an affidavit and spelled a person's name Smith instead of Smyth for example. Intentional fraud or perjury charge for that? Please tell me if I'm wrong, I just have never heard of any official of the court being charged with such for a clerical mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturn Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Indiana has recently passed legislation giving homeowners the right to resist unlawful entry by the police. They are the only state with such legislation AFAIK. IMO the right to resist unlawful arrest/entry is part and parcel to the inalienable right of self defense.I'm waiting to see what comes of this. If I miss any events in Indiana over this please run to your keyboard and type-scream at me.I fear a bloody shoot out with no winners from this law. I also fear criminals (not lawful citizens defending their home) using this law as a way to shoot at cops with no fear of retribution. I'm all for the right of the citizen to defend their home, I just fear what could happen with this law in place. For example, the Castle Doctrine can be a very good law to be in place for the same reason, but it's misuse can also lead to tragedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturn Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 I don't think I will bother with some of your others, but I will take a shot at this one...What about just pointing the gun at the police? Is that grounds for being shot? Police can point a gun at you.What if you make a motion like you are grabbing for a visible gun? I dont see how that can be called equality.Police are trained to shoot you if you point a gun at them. Police are trained to shoot you if you go for a visible gun. They are not trained to wait for you to actually shoot at them first, then respond. Obvious reasons I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 17, 2013 Author Share Posted January 17, 2013 Sturn,Is the homeowner doing something wrong when they point a weapon (or a cell phone) at a SWAT team making a combat entry to the wrong house? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturn Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Then when it comes to dole out punishment, police shouldnt be asking for equality with citizens.You agree with the same for judges? Politicians? Presidents? They also have greater powers then the average citizen. I see more police getting harsher then equal justice upon them then any of these.For the record, I actually have no problem with police that actually intentionally commit crimes to be charged and sentenced with harsher penalties. I've said that before on this forum if you don't believe me. I've said it to other cops. I will say it one more time before I repeatedly get questioned again - I have no problem with harsher penalties for criminal acting police. Just make sure they get a fair trial please.What I don't agree with is calling it "equal" justice when it is actually harsher justice against the police. It's strange that sometimes it's less justice, sometimes it's actually quite harsher justice, for an offending police officer. Varies by court or case details? I also wonder what would happen if someone questioned the Constitutionality of giving out a harsher sentence to someone based soley upon their chosen career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturn Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 There seems to be more importance placed on "getting the guy" and making sure there is enough evidence to convict than there is for the safety of anybody who may be near.Not sure if thats good or bad.Something we actually agree on (with qualifiers). Police may not be intentionally disregarding safety, but they do tend to focus all of their intention on evidence retrieval when applying for and executing a search warrant. The evidence is the treasure chest at the end of possibly hundreds of hours of work. Police can be blind to other more important issues when going to retrieve that prize. There have been court rulings and changes in tactical search warrant training attempting to correct this. I will speak more on this when I answer the no knock questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daario's*before*Snows Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 You agree with the same for judges? Politicians? Presidents? They also have greater powers then the average citizen. I see more police getting harsher then equal justice upon them then any of these.For the record, I actually have no problem with police that actually intentionally commit crimes to be charged and sentenced with harsher penalties. I've said that before on this forum if you don't believe me. I've said it to other cops. I will say it one more time before I repeatedly get questioned again - I have no problem with harsher penalties for criminal acting police. Just make sure they get a fair trial please.What I don't agree with is calling it "equal" justice when it is actually harsher justice against the police. It's strange that sometimes it's less justice, sometimes it's actually quite harsher justice, for an offending police officer. Varies by court or case details? I also wonder what would happen if someone questioned the Constitutionality of giving out a harsher sentence to someone based soley upon their chosen career.But you are only asking for equality when it comes to dishing out punishment.Back at the scene of the event, you get to shoot me if I point a gun at you. If you point a gun at me, I dont get to shoot you. That is not equality.If I witness you physically abusing my friend with a nightstick, i dont get to stop you.And I most definately am in favor of judges and anyone else involved facing harsher punishments for their mess ups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Sturn - to answer your question. Yes, politicians should be held more accountable and more harsh punishments should be put out. And yes, I think malpractice is a great analogy. You're saying that police shouldn't be treated any less than civilians for accidents. Fine. I get 5-10 years if I accidentally kill someone. Police routinely get nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Sturn,Is the homeowner doing something wrong when they point a weapon (or a cell phone) at a SWAT team making a combat entry to the wrong house?It depends: if he doesn't know that it's not the right house no. If he knows that it's the wrong house...no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.