No Knock Raids, Shooting Back at Police

[bobyclumsyninja]

Article 35.27 of our penal law says that its unlawful to use force against an LEO to resist arrest...authorized or unauthorized...when it would reasonably appear the latter is a police or peace officer.

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/Ge...268/Section32b

Section 32B. (a) A person commits the crime of resisting arrest if he knowingly prevents or attempts to prevent a police officer, acting under color of his official authority, from effecting an arrest of the actor or another, by:
(1) using or threatening to use physical force or violence against the police officer or another; or
(2) using any other means which creates a substantial risk of causing bodily injury to such police officer or another.
(b) It shall not be a defense to a prosecution under this section that the police officer was attempting to make an arrest which was unlawful, if he was acting under color of his official authority, and in attempting to make the arrest he was not resorting to unreasonable or excessive force giving rise to the right of self-defense. A police officer acts under the color of his official authority when, in the regular course of assigned duties, he is called upon to make, and does make, a judgment in good faith based upon surrounding facts and circumstances that an arrest should be made by him.
(c) The term “police officer” as used in this section shall mean a police officer in uniform or, if out of uniform, one who has identified himself by exhibiting his credentials as such police officer while attempting such arrest.
(d) Whoever violates this section shall be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or both.

Perhaps Indiana needs to amend the definition of resisting arrest, rather than essentially create a predisposition of animosity between civilians and public servants.
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/cod.../ar41/ch3.html

IC 35-41-3-3
Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony.
However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.
(b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to effect a lawful arrest. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that that deadly force is necessary:
(A) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or
(B) to effect an arrest of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(c) A law enforcement officer making an arrest under an invalid warrant is justified in using force as if the warrant was valid, unless the officer knows that the warrant is invalid.
(d) A law enforcement officer who has an arrested person in custody is justified in using the same force to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody that the officer would be justified in using if the officer was arresting that person. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that deadly force is necessary to prevent the escape from custody of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(e) A guard or other official in a penal facility or a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, if the officer has probable cause to believe that the force is necessary to prevent the escape of a person who is detained in the penal facility.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (b), (d), or (e), a law enforcement officer who is a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the same right as a person who is not a law enforcement officer to assert self-defense under IC 35-41-3-2.

[johnny_cage]

Hey sorry i was at work for a few days.

"baduglymusic that is my main question. In an instance where it WAS the wrong house/invalid warrant and someone resisted would it be considered the SAME type of criminal resistance/assault as if it were a valid search? (or would charges stack . . . ei warrant was not valid but since they assaulted an officer/resisted that JUSTIFIES the [invalid]raid.)

@tgace The reason I asked the miranda question is; if you are pulled over on the side of the road/stopped on the street AND YOU BELIEVE IT IS WRONG you may cooperate and allow due process of law to bring your appeal/case to court. (where- if you had a grievance it can be addressed.) In this scenario i would say it is ALWAYS advisable to cooperate (even if you don not think you should) and allow the LEGAL system to defend you.

Also during a regular traffic stop/search on the street or at a border or airport. . . the CONDUCT and ACTIONS of the police officer are a very large factor in what the public uses to gauge whether the actions and responses are just or not.

(when i am at an airport and someone grabs my bag without a word and starts searching while saying what they look for . . I ASSUME THEFT. Police are governed by strict codes of actions because if they DO NOT citizens have legal reprocussions. If i was walking down the mall and someone without warning grabbed me by the throat and started to pin me down . . . [the lack of highlighter colored 'police jackets' or calling out "police stop" make people unsure that it IS the police] but STILL the correct response is to cooperate and allow the legal system to validate your claims.)

THE DIFFERENCE is a no-knock raid is not proceeded by flashing lights in your window nor warning so (even if the warrant is correct) a human who is not a drug kingpin nor constanly engaged in criminality would be shocked by the entrance/emergance of a dozen officers with weapons. THE OTHER problem I have (and the reason i brought up the miranda question) Is if my car is searched (whether I HAVE drugs or illegal things or NOT) you should cooperate and if they find something and the search was not valid. (or you disagree with the charges) it is FINE you wait for your time in court and explain.

ALTERNATELY if (yes I know it is not common nor WOULD it be intentional) during a no-knock raid if you believe it is invalid I BELIEVE planning a legal defense is useless. Your dog will already be dead- if your family member gets up too quickly they will be injured or dead. If you have possessions of high value they may be taken/destroyed. and UNLIKE a regular arrest/search these actions ARE ALREADY done off of SO many presumptions that unfortunately certain actions cannot be undone. (I have never seen a lawsuit bring something back to life.)

So THAT is my point about the miranda question (i wasnt commenting that 'i cant be arrested because i havent been read my right') during a regular search if it was not police but criminals PRETENDING to be police it would be obvious by their procedure/tactics.

Also if you THOUGHT they were acting incorrectly and they WERE police you have every opportunity in court to explain that.

During a no-knock raid the suddeness would make MOST people assume 'this is a mistake' (and that is entirely leaving out the VERY possible scenario or a raid at a wrong house.) And whether it was a mistake or not . . . the urgency of the raid means they are not THREATENING arrest- they are arresting.

They are not providing court order to prove it not drugs or that its YOUR cash in court- they are taking anything and everything they believe is connected. They are not prepared to WARN resisters- they are prepared to subdue.

So my problem with the miranda thing is that WHETHER THE RAID WAS CORRECT OR NOT the urgency and suddenness of the police actions (all based off assumptions) you DO NOT HAVE THE SAME LEGAL PROTECTIONS. (ie if you feel that your dog should not be killed you would have to be able/prepared to PREVENT that. and with force.)

[BadUglyMagic]

Article 35.27 of our penal law says that its unlawful to use force against an LEO to resist arrest...authorized or unauthorized...when it would reasonably appear the latter is a police or peace officer.

Thanks for the code section. It is possible that the legislature may have intended law to apply in the event of a "mistaken/bad day/ooops wrong house or person" incident so that the citizen would not be facing criminal charges for defending themselves against what they would reasonable belive to have been illegal or criminal attack on their person. This is assuming they acted within the limits the law allowed.