230519 Bullies, 3785 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 31 to 40 of 123
Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 1234 5678 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    34,061

    Posted On:
    3/07/2012 1:21pm

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.
    That's what I meant by semantics does she mean under legal means, with a warrant, or in general? I'd like to think she meant with a warrant, but who knows.
  2. tgace is online now
    tgace's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Western New York
    Posts
    1,400

    Posted On:
    3/07/2012 2:14pm


     Style: Arnis/Kenpo hybrid

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake View Post
    That's what I meant by semantics does she mean under legal means, with a warrant, or in general? I'd like to think she meant with a warrant, but who knows.
    Unknown...and what does this mean when we are discussing warrantless entry under exigent circumstances? There are very specific instances where we don't require a warrant.

    Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
  3. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    34,061

    Posted On:
    3/07/2012 2:25pm

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by tgace View Post
    Unknown...and what does this mean when we are discussing warrantless entry under exigent circumstances? There are very specific instances where we don't require a warrant.

    Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
    LOL. You work as a cop, so that's what you decided to discuss without dropping it in the thread. I forgot how this works with you. I am discussing the bill and wondering why she would word it that vague. If we are going to head into "exigent circumstances" then let's watch this thread turn ugly.

    I'll bow out because in some cases, I personally feel, that "exigent BStances" is a way for some shitty cops to make the rest of you look bad.

    I'll go right back to it and add your new term, if it stops the abuse of "exigent circumstances, and makes cops think twice I am all for the bill.
    Last edited by It is Fake; 3/07/2012 2:29pm at .
  4. submessenger is offline
    submessenger's Avatar

    Transmaniacon MC

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Delray Beach
    Posts
    1,601

    Posted On:
    3/07/2012 2:33pm

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake View Post
    That's what I meant by semantics does she mean under legal means, with a warrant, or in general? I'd like to think she meant with a warrant, but who knows.
    I would like to think that someone who enjoys the title "Justice," would understand the ramifications of such a glaring omission.
  5. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    34,061

    Posted On:
    3/07/2012 2:36pm

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by daddykata View Post
    I would like to think that someone who enjoys the title "Justice," would understand the ramifications of such a glaring omission.
    I would like to think you've read enough bills, laws, and statuettes to know even people in the "know" omit things.

    The issue is whether it was purposeful or accidental. If a title carries that much weight or knowledge you are on the wrong website.
  6. submessenger is offline
    submessenger's Avatar

    Transmaniacon MC

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Delray Beach
    Posts
    1,601

    Posted On:
    3/07/2012 4:38pm

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake View Post
    I would like to think you've read enough bills, laws, and statuettes to know even people in the "know" omit things.

    The issue is whether it was purposeful or accidental. If a title carries that much weight or knowledge you are on the wrong website.
    Barnes appealed for a rehearing, supported with amicus curie briefs by legislators. The Supremes essentially doubled-down on their decision (Barnes is guilty, which I concur with) and their assertion that "the Castle Doctrine is not a defense to the crime of battery or other violent acts on a police officer." This is the restatement of "We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers."

    Thus, the omission was intentional, but now clarified.

    My reading is that Supremes are saying, "hey, lawmakers, you wrote this law which says you can't hurt a cop, and it doesn't jive with this other law you wrote about Castle Doctrine. But, it doesn't matter in this case because Castle Doctrine didn't apply."

    Source: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions...9201101shd.pdf
  7. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    34,061

    Posted On:
    3/07/2012 7:54pm

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by daddykata View Post
    Barnes appealed for a rehearing, supported with amicus curie briefs by legislators. The Supremes essentially doubled-down on their decision (Barnes is guilty, which I concur with) and their assertion that "the Castle Doctrine is not a defense to the crime of battery or other violent acts on a police officer." This is the restatement of "We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers."

    Thus, the omission was intentional, but now clarified.

    My reading is that Supremes are saying, "hey, lawmakers, you wrote this law which says you can't hurt a cop, and it doesn't jive with this other law you wrote about Castle Doctrine. But, it doesn't matter in this case because Castle Doctrine didn't apply."

    Source: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions...9201101shd.pdf
    Thanks.
    Last edited by It is Fake; 3/07/2012 8:01pm at .
  8. Yrkoon9 is offline
    Yrkoon9's Avatar

    Brock Sampson

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Land of the Living
    Posts
    4,590

    Posted On:
    3/12/2012 9:56pm

    supporting member
     Style: 5.56

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Police using no-knocks seems to be becoming SOP. And a lot of people are getting hurt because of it - both officers and civilians.

    BOOM! door gets kicked in middle of the night. 2 cops get shot, and I either get killed or go to prison for the rest of my life. Because I thought I was being the victim of a home invasion. The obvious argument is that if I wasn't doing anything illegal I would have nothing to worry about.

    The problem with that argument is the propensity for corner cutting along police officers leading to a LOT of wrong addresses, etc.

    Personally I think we need to spend a little more time with the ole Bill of Rights. The militarization of law enforcement has me a bit jumpy.
  9. tgace is online now
    tgace's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Western New York
    Posts
    1,400

    Posted On:
    3/12/2012 10:56pm


     Style: Arnis/Kenpo hybrid

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Yrkoon9 View Post
    Police using no-knocks seems to be becoming SOP. And a lot of people are getting hurt because of it - both officers and civilians.

    BOOM! door gets kicked in middle of the night. 2 cops get shot, and I either get killed or go to prison for the rest of my life. Because I thought I was being the victim of a home invasion. The obvious argument is that if I wasn't doing anything illegal I would have nothing to worry about.

    The problem with that argument is the propensity for corner cutting along police officers leading to a LOT of wrong addresses, etc.

    Personally I think we need to spend a little more time with the ole Bill of Rights. The militarization of law enforcement has me a bit jumpy.
    To be nit-picky. If the police have a warrant they are within the ole bill of rights. Warrants are approved by judges...not cops.

    If people have an issue with the practice of no-knocks, it's the judges approving them without enough oversight that they should be looking at.

    I'm sort of middle of the road on the "no-knock". I agree that far too many agencies look at them as SOP instead of an "option" for specific needs.

    We (my unit) like to set-up surveillance and wait for the subject to leave the house, we get the person stopped on a vehicle stop...which is easy because we have a warrant to search the person as well. We then take the person back to the house and execute the search. Other times we have a uniformed officer knock on the door because a bunch of "street" looking undercovers knocking on the door may not go over well. There are some local agencies who don't like working with us at times because we don't "always hit" on every warrant. I don't think that dope is worth getting killed over.

    But there are sometimes where the no knock is necessary. Yes it has to do with drug cases. I know the "war on drugs" is a matter of debate around here but we are still tasked with arresting drug dealers (which my unit focuses on vs "users" 90% of the time). Some evidence is easier to dispose of than others. 40 lbs of marijuana? Not so much. But ounces of coke or meth? That gets flushed fast. But we are WELL aware of what house we are hitting and who will be in that house before we hit it.

    IMO..and I hope I'm not hexing myself...most of the wrong address stories I see are rooted in sloppy investigation vs sloppy execution.
  10. tgace is online now
    tgace's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Western New York
    Posts
    1,400

    Posted On:
    3/12/2012 11:26pm


     Style: Arnis/Kenpo hybrid

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Just typing now.

    Something that comes to mind regarding the core of this thread...from my perspective at least... is that the popular conversational points on this issue tend to focus on no-knock raids, SWAT hitting granny's house, etc.

    Those, of course are the "headline" issues that we all read on the interwebs and yup...many are flat out ****-up's and the issue needs addressing. But on a day-in day-out basis what goes on is more like the case that has been discussed up-thread:

    You get dispatched to a "violent domestic" where a woman, whispering into the phone, tells the dispatcher to "send help". When you arrive on scene a male answers the door as asks you "what the **** do you want??...get off of my property!!!!

    When you try to speak with the wife he only yells back into the house "do you need the police??" and all you hear is her voice saying "No..Im fine..." The husband tells you to beat it and starts to close the door.


    What do you do? This is not a crafted scenario...I and probably every LEO on this board has faced this sort of situation. Do you leave and possibly let the woman get hurt or at worst killed than face accusations of "not doing your job when a woman cried for help?" Do you take hours trying to get a warrant? A warrant for what? Does anybody here know the process and time required to get a warrant? Or do you push your way in without a warrant due to exigent circumstances? Or maybe try and arrest the husband for obstructing an investigation and use that as the reason for entering the house? Tick tock...decision time.

    That's the sort of stuff we get day in and out and that's the sort of stuff rulings and laws like this are going to impact far more often than the...while very important...rarer instances of the wrong address no-knock.
Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 1234 5678 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.