Posted on 08/06/2012 9:26:31 AM PDT by QT3.14
And there are certainly more than ‘a handful of these things a year’.
OK. Where’s YOUR numbers on this?
The answer to this, I believe, is:
The suspects have to come out sometime. Make the arrest in the Piggly Wiggly parking lot, read them the warrant on the spot, and the send the search team to the (empty and unsanitized) house.
>> I don’t think that an unlawful entry in error couldn’t be sorted out by other means than a gun, cowboy, but it could.
If I understand that convoluted sentence of yours correctly, you’re saying that an unlawful entry could be “sorted out” by some means other than shooting the cop.
Very well - explain how. And explain what “sorted out” means.
I offered you the chance to explain this earlier but you sidestepped my question. Will you sidestep it again? Or will you man up?
“The topic is ‘unannounced dynamic entries’, or whatever term you wish to use. These (hopefully) constitute a tiny percentage of the ‘MILLIONS of civilian interactions’ you quote.”
Maybe this will help you with your number crunching;
In 2010, there were an estimated 9,082,887 property crime offenses in the Nation. (MY NOTE: these are just the REPORTED ones).
The 2-year trend showed that property crime decreased 2.7 percent in 2010 compared with the 2009 estimate. The 5-year trend, comparing 2010 data with that of 2006, showed a 9.3 percent drop in property crime.
In 2010, the rate of property crime was estimated at 2,941.9 per 100,000 inhabitants, a 3.3 percent decrease when compared with the rate in 2009. The 2010 property crime rate was 12.1 percent lower than the 2006 rate and 19.6 percent below the 2001 rate. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)
Larceny-theft accounted for 68.1 percent of all property crimes in 2010. Burglary accounted for 23.8 percent and motor vehicle theft for 8.1 percent. (Based on Table 1.)
Property crimes in 2010 resulted in losses estimated at 15.7 billion dollars. (Based on Tables 1 and 23.)
“Very well - explain how. And explain what “sorted out” means.
I offered you the chance to explain this earlier but you sidestepped my question. Will you sidestep it again? Or will you man up?”
Man up? Oh, no, I wouldn’t try that around here...too dangerous. When someone comes through the door, they don’t come in shooting. Perhaps you have statistics on the number of times that has happened. Go to the ACLU - you’re probably a contributing member.
So now the burden is upon the officers to produce a warrant before entry. Sounds fair.
“The topic is ‘unannounced dynamic entries’, or whatever term you wish to use. These (hopefully) constitute a tiny percentage of the ‘MILLIONS of civilian interactions’ you quote.”
Unannounced Dynamic Entry? You mean guns blazing? No questions asked, kill ‘em all? Wahhhooooooooooo?
How many were there last year?
Maybe this will help you with your number crunching;
In 2010, there were an estimated 9,082,887 property crime offenses in the Nation. (MY NOTE: these are just the REPORTED ones).
The 2-year trend showed that property crime decreased 2.7 percent in 2010 compared with the 2009 estimate. The 5-year trend, comparing 2010 data with that of 2006, showed a 9.3 percent drop in property crime.
In 2010, the rate of property crime was estimated at 2,941.9 per 100,000 inhabitants, a 3.3 percent decrease when compared with the rate in 2009. The 2010 property crime rate was 12.1 percent lower than the 2006 rate and 19.6 percent below the 2001 rate. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)
Larceny-theft accounted for 68.1 percent of all property crimes in 2010. Burglary accounted for 23.8 percent and motor vehicle theft for 8.1 percent. (Based on Table 1.)
Property crimes in 2010 resulted in losses estimated at 15.7 billion dollars. (Based on Tables 1 and 23.)
When someone comes through the door, they don’t come in shooting. Perhaps you have statistics on the number of times that has happened. Go to the ACLU website - you’re probably all contributing members.
>> When someone comes through the door, they don’t come in shooting.
Wow — what a vacuous statement that was. No, you’re right, just like criminal home invaders, their first action is to break the door down.
>> Perhaps you have statistics on the number of times that has happened.
You’re the gal who turned the argument to numbers with your ridiculous .00001% “factoid”. So the burden is on YOU to correct the math errors that have been pointed out to you several times.
>> Go to the ACLU - you’re probably a contributing member.
And he goes nuclear, folks! — “if you don’t agree with jessduntno’s bullshiite, you’re a card-carrying ACLU member.” What’s next on your dance card, in lieu of actually coming up with a coherent argument on the merits of your position? Calling me Stalin? Hitler? ROFLMAO.
>> Maybe this will help you with your number crunching;
Not really, seeing as it’s just more red herring bullshit.
The total number of property crimes is in no way relevant.
You’re blowing smoke — plain and simple.
From the article;
The measure was approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature and signed by Republican Governor Mitch Daniels in March. It amended a 2006 so-called Castle Doctrine bill that allows deadly force to stop illegal entry into a home or car.
The law describes the ability to use force to “protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.”
For you guys, (or gals) that would mean just about anything, wouldn't it? For a LOT of gangstas and wannabes it would, I promise you that.
Probably a LOT of forced home invasions of cars, huh? You know, jaws of life attacks, flash bangs in the back seat, that kinda thing?
Stupid amendment that will get people killed.
You’re blowing smoke — plain and simple.
So...you don’t think that out of the MILLIONS of the documented transactions, this is no indicator of just how many times a cop shows up somewhere involved in it? OK.
Where’s YOUR numbers?
You got nothing. Tell me - how many times there have been cops going through the door killing everyone for no reason last year? Simple question. You gotta have a number on that somewhere. Then take it as a PERCENTAGE of times homes have been entered. Not forcefully, but, like the new amendment in the law says, for ANY fing reason? Yeah. ANY reason.
“Oooohhh...I thought he was going to pull his gun on me. You know these cops are armed and they all JBT, right?”
I thought so. You got nothing. There probably weren’t enough decimals in my number. But the number of dead cops will be a lot higher. Or people who someone THOUGHT was going to hurt them. Shit, it doesn’t even say there has to be tangible evidence of imminent harm.
“The law describes the ability to use force to “protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.”
Shit. Open season, boys. let it rip.
>> For you guys, (or gals) that would mean just about anything, wouldn’t it?
For me, since I **KNOW** I’m not a lawbreaker, I would assume any forced (and therefore unlawful) entry into my car or house was a crime against me, and blow away the perp, if I was able. Without worrying about if the perp was a fake cop, or a real but incompetent or evil one.
So — if you’re a cop, you had better approach me by ringing my damn doorbell — alone, not a herd of you — WAITING until I ANSWER the door, and then politely show me your BADGE and your SEARCH WARRANT.
What is so hard for you to understand about that concept? What is it about that concept that violates the precepts of living under the protection of a bill of rights?
I get that there are criminals out there, and that it may be necessary for the police to occasionally break a door down to get them. But — DON’T F__K UP AND BREAK **MY** DOOR DOWN, because I know I am NOT one of them. If you do break my door down, and I am able, I will protect myself, and my property, by SHOOTING TO KILL.
Get it? It’s just THAT simple. Under the Indiana law, the burden not to f__k up and forcibly enter the wrong dwelling now rests on the POLICE. The reward for not f__king up is the police stay alive and uninjured. The penalty for f__king up is to risk getting killed. As it SHOULD be. Instead of on the innocent, law-abiding citizen to guess how to respond to a forcible entry.
“I would assume any forced (and therefore unlawful) entry into my car or house was a crime against me, and blow away the perp, if I was able.”
Not what the law says. The law says - and I will copy it here for all you folks AGAIN - “The law describes the ability to use force to “protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.”
Forced entry or violence was not what I argued was so GD wrong headed about this bill. You seem determined to put something in there that wasn’t there.
And that’s my point. A LOT of people can see harm that at there...
So even though we were talking about two different subjects....thanks for playing.
You obviously missed post #43.
Perhaps you should read it.
“Get it? It’s just THAT simple. Under the Indiana law, the burden not to f__k up and forcibly enter the wrong dwelling now rests on the POLICE.”
Not what the half-assed amendment says.
The trouble with your belief is just that, it is your interpretation of the Fifth Amendment. See how the courts feel about that if you ever get a chance to test it out. I don't see the right to eliminate evidence covered by "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,"
But then again, if you exercise your "right to eliminate or obfuscate evidence" you wouldn't be in court in the first place, seeing how there would be no evidence of a crime.
The suspects have to come out sometime. Make the arrest in the Piggly Wiggly parking lot, read them the warrant on the spot, and the send the search team to the (empty and unsanitized) house.
See above.
>> So...you don’t think that out of the MILLIONS of the documented transactions
You are such a stubborn girl!
THE ONLY “transactions” to which this rider applies is P-O-L-I-C-E executing forcible entry into a residence.
Get it? Let me spell it out again: P-O-L-I-C-E.
There are NOT!!!! do you understand? NOT ten million P-O-L-I-C-E forced entries into houses in the US.
Yet there are WAY more than a “handful” of these incidents wherein the P-O-L-I-C-E enter the WRONG house.
THAT is the ratio YOU first put forth. Get it? Here’s the math:
WRONGFUL P-O-L-I-C-E forced entries into a residence
-————————————————————— (divided by)
ALL P-O-L-I-C-E forced entries into a residence.
THAT number is MUCH greater than the one in ten million (.00001%) you based your argument on! COP A CLUE!!
STOP BARFING OUT STUPID NUMBERS ABOUT EVERY PROPERTY CRIME. THEY ARE MEANINGLESS. You’re embarrassing yourself.
“And he goes nuclear, folks!”
And you still haven’t understood what the law is changed to. Pathetic. And no, that wasn’t nuclear. That wasn’t even a pop gun.
“You obviously missed post #43.”
You obviously miss my point. The new amendment to the law describes the ability to use force to “protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.”
The map (which is interesting mix of all kinds of things) certainly shows some pretty awful things over a ten year spread. But that only means something if you know how many times it was performed. By the way, there were a lot of blue circles (dead cops) on the map. Expect more if they can be met by deadly force because “the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.”
Because, depending on the stability, the lethality, the mental capacity, alertness and the intent of the one who is doing the “judgement” on what is “construed”, that could make a HUGE pile of bodies both intentional and unintentional, on both sides.
Arguing for this is like arguing for legalizing drugs. Let’s let what can already be a bad situation worse because we can’t think of any other way out of it and it’s so awful and bad now, we can’t just sit here, we have TO DO something.
“In turn, the National Rifle Association lobbied for an amendment to the Castle Doctrine to ensure that residents were protected from officers that abuse the law to grant themselves entry into private space.”
A little better, but a much narrower construct, don’t you think? It would do far more to address the issue you raised.
Only problem is how many 'illegal dynamic entries" do the poleese count as 'crimes'?
Gee, think the total number nationally may be lower than, say....ONE? I do.
The relevance of your stats is only in that crime against property and homes is increasing, making inhabitants more vulnerable, fearful, and unwilling to 'sort it out later'.
By the way, how often is your version of 'sort it out later' accomplished at the county morgue?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.