No Knock Raids, Shooting Back at Police

**It is Fake** · Posted On: 3/16/2012 4:40pm

Originally Posted by tgace

That's hindsight. You saying we should judge police behavior based only on the end result? That because in this case there was no violent domestic they should be judged differently than if there was?

That reminds me of the "why did the cops shoot to kill...all the kid had was a bb gun" meme.

Which is no different than the "what if" meme everyone is currently playing.

**tgace** · Posted On: 3/16/2012 4:47pm

Originally Posted by It is Fake

Which is no different than the "what if" meme everyone is currently playing.

True...

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

**It is Fake** · Posted On: 3/16/2012 5:05pm

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.

***JohnnyCache*** · Posted On: 3/16/2012 5:25pm

Originally Posted by tgace

That's hindsight. You saying we should judge police behavior based only on the end result? That because in this case there was no violent domestic they should be judged differently than if there was?

That reminds me of the "why did the cops shoot to kill...all the kid had was a bb gun" meme.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

So there was an exigency that justified tasing him into a coma to follow up on, but there's nothing citable...hmm i could see that if they said "our bad, citizen" but the charged him with a bunch of stuff stemming from the contact

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Xparent Red Tapatalk

**tgace** · Posted On: 3/16/2012 10:02pm

Originally Posted by JohnnyCache

So there was an exigency that justified tasing him into a coma to follow up on, but there's nothing citable...hmm i could see that if they said "our bad, citizen" but the charged him with a bunch of stuff stemming from the contact

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Xparent Red Tapatalk

Well..the exigency of the situation has nothing to do with "justifying" the tasing.

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:

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions...9201101shd.pdf

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 unfortunate wording of an appeals judge is what sparked all the controversy in an otherwise run of the mill case......

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.

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 courts apparently saw this 4th Amendment exemption as a combination of exigent circumstance AND consent (from the wife).

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.

**tgace** · Posted On: 3/16/2012 10:09pm

Originally Posted by It is Fake

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.

People here can irritate the **** out of me too :) ...but I'm not going to change any minds (or at least get someone look at it from my perspective for a minute) by being "badge heavy". And the debate helps me by having to articulate my thoughts....a skill that pays off in my line of work and needs constant practice.

**tgace** · Posted On: 3/16/2012 10:31pm

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.

**bobyclumsyninja** · Posted On: 3/19/2012 9:56pm

ADR
A Drunken Response

"wasss their a point before there meandering was posted their??!?"

Originally Posted by It is Fake

Show me where it says this anywhere in that measure. Yes, right now.

Spoiler:

Self defense. Specifies that a person may use reasonable force against any other person in certain circumstances. Provides that a person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to: (1) protect the person or a third person from unlawful force; (2) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful entry into the person's dwelling; or (3) prevent or terminate the public servant's criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession. 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 servant unless:
(1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is acting unlawfully or is not engaged in the execution of the public servant's official duties; and (2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.

Do you really want to walk into the potentials?

Can you, or anyone tell me what need this actually addresses? I count quite a few cops as friends, and have a bunch of acquaintances in the force(s) - (BPD, Transit). I would be gravely concerned for them and their fellow cops were something like that to be considered and passed here. It is one of the absolute hardest jobs there is. Hard enough without this cavalier play-on-words about their lives, and when people can render subjective judgement on their duty.

Luckily, it wouldn't stand a chance, and would actually possibly implode the universe, as it would give the Globe and the Herald something to agree on, beyond our beloved sports teams.

Internal Affairs isn't just for TV plots. They are there to investigate and take action on police abuse of power/misconduct. How about a real police budget, and a bolstered IA if there's some great issue in the state?

**It is Fake** · Posted On: 3/19/2012 10:15pm

Let me know where it says this:

Is that why I'm horrified at the idea of the legislature giving outs to people to shoot, or shoot at cops?

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.

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

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.

Now, if you think that is an easy thing to do I laugh directly in your face.

**bobyclumsyninja** · Posted On: 3/20/2012 11:06am

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.
http://www.indecisionforever.com/blo...l-goes-extinct

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.

I see.