I'd genuinely like to hear the opinions of LEO on this board about the Constitutionality of that decision and if they disagree with it, if they were in IN would they proceed to illegally enter a home.

As I said, I'll ask later tonight in WCE.

Punch a cop back after he hits you, and see what happens. I bet it's not the same thing as what would happen if you struck back at a guy who punched you in a parking lot. The fact is, the police have powers that you and I don't, and being able to use violence in the name of the law, while having partial immunity if something goes wrong during the legitimate use of violence, is one of those powers. It HAS to be, otherwise the police would be powerless to enforce the law.

When you, Mr. Homeowner, take up arms to defend yourself, your family, and your home, you MUST positively ID your target. If the target is dressed in black or navy blue, with POLICE written across the front & back in bright yellow, and are shouting "POLICE! DROP THE WEAPON!" you drop your gun immediately. If they're cops and you obey immediately, you're not going to be shot. If they're crooks using police gear as a ruse and you obey immediately because you think they're cops, you'll get shot. You're guaranteed the right to defend yourself, but that doesn't mean you're guaranteed the right to prevail. What would you have - that a homeowner can shoot anyone who enters his home uninvited without facing any consequences if it was a cop or his son/daughter trying to sneak in after coming home late? Like I said before, sometime bad things happen to good people. We can't pass a law against that.

You're using two cases to prove your point? TWO? Find me proof of a thousand more cases like those 2 and then you'll have a valid point.



Links or it didn't happen.



Read my previous reply. You, as the homeowner, HAVE to positively ID your target before shooting. Should you not be held liable if the person you kill turns out not to be a criminal? The cop, as the embodiment of the law, has the power to use force - deadly force if necessary - in the name of the law, and also has partial immunity if an honest mistake is made. Don't like it? Get the law changed. But don't #%&*$# later on when you're screaming for a cop to shoot the crook you're wrestling with for control of a gun and he won't do it because he doesn't want to go to jail if he hits you by accident or the crook really isn't a crook.

Can someone tell me why it took 71 rds, was it a two way range?


Phil

More stupidity from the war on drugs. What else is new.

We need to make the proper distinctions here. A man punching another in a parking lot, vs. punching a police officer. This is a case of full knowledge on who's getting punched. A "no knock" vs. a criminal break in does not offer this situation.



THIS is the situation. We've got two friendly armed parties backed by the law, meeting under forcible entry, expecting mortal threat, and are prepared to resist it.

Hoping for a good outcome is all we can do when this occurs under bizarre circumstances. But since the law has created this situation, I think we can do better than hope.



States with Castle Doctrine laws clearly define the conditions of use. For cases where there is doubt, we have a legal system to determine whether those conditions actually were met.

If we simply stop police from entering in ways that trigger those same conditions, then the problem is gone.

And most of the problem is again, not even a worry about a rare police mistake. We also eliminate the need to worry about criminals pretending to be police while kicking in. Because police wouldn't do it that way to begin with.

"no knocks" should be so rare as to be nearly nonexistent. How common are they? The paper trail better be perfect before they authorize such an operation. If not, an LEO goes to jail. They certainly should not be using them out of the blue on potential small-timers. Also, can the SWAT team leader be charged with depriving the victim of medical assistance when he could have been saved? Even if this guy was a criminal, he is entitled to that. It's manslaughter, no question, if he is refused it.

Two is enough and how many are never reported because the home owner was killed thinking it was the police?

Our society always likes to quote Jefferson, "Better one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be condemned."

We've already heard you plainly state that you believe cops are special and deserve the right to break the law as long as the law feels like excusing them. It is a difference that I disagree with.

If the shooting is illegal for me, it should be just as illegal for a police officer to do. If I'm being threatened and I can't shoot the person, neither should the cop be allowed to. For years, AZ law stated that a person was only allowed to defend themselves with equal force. This meant that if someone came up to you threatening you with a knife and you had a gun, you were legally required not to shoot. Yet, it was accepted that the police could shoot anyone with a knife that was threatening an officer. This is a double standard and does not lend itself to a free and just society.

oh well...s**t happens!

Was his name Diallo or Sean Bell?

Then Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are enough to prove ALL Muslims are terrorists. OJ Simpson and Hassan Malik are enough to prove ALL blacks are murderers. Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer are enough to prove ALL whites are serial killers.



More like "how many are never reported because they didn't happen?"



You're saying something more like "Better one hundred alleged criminals go free than one innocent man be apprehended."



Well, let's see here. Going back to the message you quoted in your latest reply, I said:



In my message immediately before the one you quoted, I said:



There's absolutely nothing in either of those that you can use to back up your claim that I support the police being able to break the law - nothing that any reasonable person could take to mean what you said. So, all I can conclude is that you have no problem with intentionally misrepresenting what people say and telling bald-faced lies in order to make your point.



Your problem is with authority, it's plain to see. Do you also think that since YOU can't legally imprison someone, the state shouldn't be able to either? Without being able to use an escalated level of force, just how do you expect the police to enforce the law? Would blue lights in the rearview mirror be a request to pull over? When an alleged murderer is located, would police be sent to ask him if he consents to being arrested, and would they have to go away without him if he declined? That sure sounds like the world you're thinking of.

Anyway, to recap: If the police bust down your door and identify themselves as police, you immediately drop your gun. You won't be shot. Don't think "oh, I bet it's criminals posing as cops." When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not people walking behind the main characters and clapping coconut shells together.

Timothy, it is entirely a lost cause (and thus wasted time on your part), but I still can only thank you for taking at least a verbal stand against totalitarianism and tyranny�being one of a minuscule number of people who will do even that, rather than enthusiastically supporting it as NH2112 does.

Taking a stand against totalitarianism and tyranny? Please. You and he are nothing but run of the mill anti-authoritarians, don't flatter yourselves by comparing yourselves to true fighters of tyrants. You're like children saying "you're not the boss of me!" to their parents or teachers when told to eat their Lima beans or stop talking in class.

If you are trying to make the case that the police represent those aspects, then I'm asking you to stop. It's insulting, especially to those numerous members who are LEO. Their duty is to serve and protect and that is what they do.

It's a dangerous business and sometimes mistakes get made, but to categorize as you did is far over the top.

Way too many officers have been killed in this year alone, simply doing their duty. It denigrates their service and their honor to call them what you did.

... Except we aren't talking about being told to eat beans, are we? No, we're talking about having one's door kicked down unannounced and being shot by people who think like you do.



I am talking about NH2112's notions (and those of many, many others) that police and government should be able to do pretty much whatever they want. That's tyranny. I'd thank you to not make false assumptions about my thoughts and intentions.

This discussion is disgusting. Echo out.

Did you see the "If" at the start of the sentence? Do not tell me what I should do, I run these forums and if you push me like that I can show you the door.

I Almost expected the first post of the Thread to continue the thread title..

SWAT Team Fires 71 Rounds at Former Marine... and Doesnt hit the target,

Perhaps this should be moved to the CE forum?

We certainly considered this, but the consensus was to leave it in the CH. This can change, obviously.

Another one whose only valid method of defending his position is to intentionally misrepresent and lie about what I said. If you can find where, in my own words, I said police and the gov't should be able to do pretty much whatever they want, then go for it. As a favor to you - in case you're too busy on the "paying income tax isn't mandatory because the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified and the gov't doesn't have the authority to make you do anything anyway!" websites - I've taken the step of posting both iterations of my words that you and Timothy have twisted. Do these look familiar?



And:

Isn't an honest mistake called involuntary man slaughter?