It is just a matter of time before we have a homeowner who thinks his state’s castle doctrine law gives him the right to use deadly force against an intruder who turns out to be a law enforcement agent who doesn’t identify himself as such as quickly as he should.
“It is just a matter of time before we have a homeowner who thinks his state’s castle doctrine law gives him the right to use deadly force against an intruder who turns out to be a law enforcement agent who doesn’t identify himself as such as quickly as he should.”
Well, then the law enforcemnt agent better identify himself better, if he doesn’t want to end up in a box. The risk is not on the homeowner if someone is breaking into his house without identifying themselves.
So, what about burglars breaking into a house shouting “police”?
They’re identifying themselves as police, but they’re not.
I think the solution would be that no LEO is allowed to break into a house.
Then you’ll know. If they’re breaking into your house, they’re not police, FBI, etc.
Actually, you do have the right to shoot at the real police if they are breaking into your house unless they have authority to break into your house and are not exceeding their authority (proper warrant and reason to be using that type of force, etc.). In other words, the police do not just have a right to break into a home.
It happens now. The results during the incident are mixed, and the results in post-incident legal action vary too.
As I’ve told my friend: that’s what the fourth amendment is for.
By requiring a warrant to be obtained AND presented it forms a protocol that honors the property & rights of the suspected/accused AS WELL AS providing protection for the Public Servant who is executing the warrant. It is the only way that I can think of that preserves the right of the citizen to defense AS WELL AS preserving the rights of the Public Servant.
Very real conundrum. Innocent until proven guilty I guess, is the way ahead. Assuming survival.
And your problem with this is?
it has happened before.