Oh and you irritate the **** out of me sometimes, but I appreciate your posts. They do give me a different perspective to ponder. Always good to have someone in the know who doesn't resort to "respect my authority" and "I am a bigot deal with it" in a debate. Then runs away and stops posting.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Xparent Red Tapatalk
You need an exigent circumstance to enter the house without the warrant. That all exigency means. When the LEO has legal authority to enter and you lay hands on him, you are going to be arrested and there is no defense...as Barnes discovered.
The legal argument for exigency here from the cop side would be:
911 call+dispatch described as a "violent domestic" (I think the female told dispatch that Barnes was throwing stuff around but didnt hit her...but its unknown if the officers had that info)+ the situation on arrival+the male half saying "keep out!"+the female saying "let them in"+officer not knowing what transpired prior to arrival+ uncertainty of what risk woman would be in if they left dude in house and applied for warrant=exigent circumstance
Of course the LEO has to make that call on the scene..the judge will decide if he was right in his math later. In this case Barnes charges were upheld and his appeal defeated. The hubub over the whole thing was that Barnes' attorney wanted to argue that:
The unfortunate wording of an appeals judge is what sparked all the controversy in an otherwise run of the mill case......Quote:
At the heart of this appeal has been the suspected spouse abuser’s contention that the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury that he had the right to get physical with the police officers if he believed their attempt to enter the residence was legally unjustified.
The bottom line here was that no matter what he "believed"..he was wrong (which is the counter argument against this proposed legislation). The court apparently determined that the officers did have reason to enter without a warrant and Barnes was convicted.
The courts apparently saw this 4th Amendment exemption as a combination of exigent circumstance AND consent (from the wife).Quote:
Neither the trial court, nor the Court of Appeals, nor this Court have agreed with Barnes that the officers violated any statute or any provision of the state or federal constitutions when they sought entry, at the wife’s request, to investigate and ensure the wife’s safety
The "well he really didn't commit a domestic violence offence" is an after the fact argument...exigency gets you in the house w/o a warrant regardless of what may have actually happened.
Back to the main point of the thread.
I think this legislation is a reaction to some cases where the homeowner of a "mistaken identity" raid shoots before he knows whats going on and gets charged. Which is bad lawyering by some district attorneys IMO.
I think there needs to be a better worded exemption in the states laws that exempts someone who was not knowingly and willing resisting the police. If you know that they are the police it's in nobodies interest to resist. Figure out (and sue) what happened latter. But if you react to something before you know that they are Cops...and you are innocent..you shouldn't be charged...yes..even if a cop is killed.
Let me know where it says this:
Not your emotional rhetoric of "I have cop friends." Oh and no your emotional appeal of "one of the hardest job there is" doesn't move me at all.Quote:
Is that why I'm horrified at the idea of the legislature giving outs to people to shoot, or shoot at cops?
I know it may be hard for you to read, but if you have a lick of sense that means YOU HAVE TO PROVE THEY DID SOMETHING ILLEGAL.Quote:
Specifies that a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if: (1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime; (2) the person provokes action by the public servant with intent to injure the public servant; (3) the person has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor; or (4) the person reasonably believes the public servant is acting lawfully or is engaged in the lawful execution of the public servant's official duties. Provides that a person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public
Now, if you think that is an easy thing to do I laugh directly in your face.
So rather than sensible actions by the DA's office, and a bolstered IA, they need to do this?
I wonder what else they've been doing in the legislature there.
A bill that would have specifically allowed Indiana's public schools to teach creationism alongside evolution in science classes has been shelved by the leader of the Indiana House of Representatives.
The proposal cleared the state Senate two weeks ago, but Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma is using a procedural move to kill the proposal for this legislative session.