And if a warrant is not required, do you suppose that the bad guy in the house is going to understand that? Is he going to agree with it? Or, is he going to decide to fight it out, because in his mind the police aren't making a legal entry? Can't you see how simple this is? Just because the homeowner doesn't think that the police are making a legal entry doesn't mean that the police aren't making a legal entry. It's stupid to afford the homeowner the option to decide for himself. If he's wrong (and he probably is), he's going to think that he has the right to fight it out. That's going to get somebody killed (most likely himself).
Originally Posted by Permalost
A crazy guy willing to have a shootout with the cops isn't likely to be thinking clearly about legal procedures.
Originally Posted by Charles Brown
(Insert condescending question here)
Just because there's a law about police entries doesn't mean that a homeowner won't shoot the hell out of a suspected home invader. In the scenario you're talking about, I think that drawing a gun on a cop and firing is a pretty serious thing, and not something that a reasonable person would do lightly, if they merely suspected a breach in protocol.
Just because the homeowner doesn't think that the police are making a legal entry doesn't mean that the police aren't making a legal entry. It's stupid to afford the homeowner the option to decide for himself. If he's wrong (and he probably is), he's going to think that he has the right to fight it out. That's going to get somebody killed (most likely himself).
Does anyone have an opinion on what the law was intended to accomplish for the citizens?
It was intended to give people the means to protect themselves from unreasonable search and seizure. The trouble is that most people aren't fit to determine whether or not an arrest or search is unreasonable (unconstitutional). In the heat of the moment, when things are going down, MOST people who are being arrested or searched don't think that the arrest or search is unreasonable. Therein lies the problem.
Originally Posted by BadUglyMagic
The problem here is not drug enforcement, it's clearly the wrong people getting the wrong drugs... why don't you do a Crime Exchange Program: Seize the weed from the grow houses, give it to the people beating their spouses, seize their meth at the trailer parks, give it to the unemployed to make them more productive, seize the x from the jobless party kids, give it to the cougars (on behalf of all mankind), give their antidepressents do your own bummed out repressed teenage kids, to keep them away from the druggies of course, and just drink the teenagers' booze, like cops have done since the begining of time.
You're kind of right about people not being able to decide if an entry is lawful. So, easy solution: Serve warrants when people leave the house and save the tactical entries for the real dope houses where someone's always home. And while you're at it, generally stay the **** out of the business of people that aren't hurting anything. Cull out the guys who live to kick doors, lose the system of flips and snitches, and do your work different, so it's not built on fucking up the lives of the average user, and maybe someone would actually be happy to see officer friendly once in a while
PS you may be wondering "what of the crack, John. Where does Freeway Ricky's Concentrated Asshole Rock fit into your New World Order?"
it should go to the one place it could improve mental processes: Congress.
I was intrigued by the initial posts on this thread; less so as it's developed, not least as I lack the knowledge of US domestics BUT....
My initial thought was: do Americans just want the chance to legally shoot police officers?
That thought has remained in my Mind as posts develop. Feel free to disabuse or abuse me.
So Johnny, I can see that you're for legalization. That's great and all, but I fail to see how your rant actually relates to the discussion. I hope that you are aware that there are many, many laws for which a person can be arrested or a home can be searched other than drug laws. In fact, the case that served as the impetus for this discussion was a domestic violence case.
P.S., I'm for legalization too.
Last edited by Charles Brown; 3/16/2012 12:27pm at .
Naw, go ahead an keep it. You live in a country with a completely different level and protocol concerning guns, society and law enforcement.
Originally Posted by Eddie Hardon
Originally Posted by Charles Brown
Note that the case was NOT a no-knock, but a knock and talk - they walked into his house behind him. There was no entry here in the sense being hyperbolized in the thread.
Domestic violence is despicable, but so is knocking and talking to expand the scope of searches. Did you read the actually brief? Police were called, when they arrived, no domestic violence was in evidence, just the agitated barnes packing and leaving. As he re-entered the house, the officers attempted to follow him, he told them no, they needed a warrant, they insisted, he resisted, they tazed him to the point of hospitalization in the ensuing fight.
Note that at no point in the preceding was the entry lionized- the decision of the court was that Barnes was not acting lawfully when he resisted the search, despite the violation of the 4th amendment. The statute would rectify that, it would not provide safe haven in a foot chase or deny entrance in the case of legitimate probably cause.
Barnes may have correctly parsed his rights or he may have merely happened to be correct, it's hard to say.
Such resistance is allowed in other states, and the sky hasn't fallen - it's very hard to prove you acted correctly.
Legislating on the basis of what misconceptions about the law people might develop is a true slippery slope that isn't good for anyone.
Maybe we should take away the extension of self defense to other parties, for example, because right to life whackjobs might take it to mean they can shoot doctors in defense of fetuses
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO