Posted on 06/12/2012 4:31:20 AM PDT by Rennes Templar
And we have a right to be secure on our persons, and we don't lose our Constitutional rights simply because the invades works for the government. Odd how you ignore those facts so completely.
(Spell-check doesn't always help LOL)
“Your wife or child calls the cops ~ you shoot them because they didn’t come with a warrant.
I”d suspect that’s not a hypothetical with you.”
Yes, that is a hypothetical, and a stupid one. This is about unlawful entry, not unwarranted enty. All the cops would have to do is prove exigent circumstances. They do so now, ridiculously, by arguing they had to knock down the door so as to stop evidence from being destroyed. Certainly they’d have no compunction about arguing someone’s life was in danger.
Judges would still give them the benefit of the doubt, being fellow members of the government club, just as they do with everything from shootings to traffic tickets. Just as, also, they almost certainly will with every type of potentially unlawful entry to pop up under this law.
“they don’t lose their constitutional rights simply because they work for the government”
I don’t lose my rights just because the other guy is wearing a badge.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the 50-state Supreme Court ping list.
I'll back you up but go a little further: anybody saying that their community, or county, needs paramilitary SWAT training and weapons needs to go back ten years and list the episodes that lead to that conclusion. That will put an end to that BS.
Thanks for taking on muwaiyah. I do not understand why he cannot concede that the LEO establishment often exceeds their mission and authority and abuses the people.
Like muir_redwoods, at one time I was a big supporter of the police. Now, I fear and abhor them. They often appear to me to be outside the American way of life. Many are the common jack-booted thugs we despise. And they don’t seem to care that we feel the way we do about them.
If cops don’t want to get shot, they they should get rid of no-knock warrants and SWAT teams. There is zero need for a competent police force to have a SWAT team.
SWAT is nothing more than a bunch of good ole boys with guns, flak vests and a shared Wyatt Earp complex.
That assumes that the desire at Waco was for a non-violent encounter, an assumption without much evidence behind it.
If it is “probable cause,” it better be worth killing or dying over before they act that way.
Otherwise, I won’t be very upset when somebody feeds the cop a few pills.
I'd throw in many prosecutors and my local City Attorney. (Also these days the EPA, Just-Us Dept, Forest Service and many others).
You’re welcome.
Tex
I grew up in a LEO household many decades ago. Lots of officers stopped by for coffee, BS and to horsetrade guns and knives with my granddad, who was a firefighter and a huge weapons collector. I never met a bad one. These guys didn't bat an eye when a kid ran right up to them when they got out of the patrol car to show them his new 16-guage shotgun, or a moment later demonstrating it by smoking a passing crow. (As I recall I got a compliment on my shooting.) It was a different situation back then.
The new LEOs frankly scare me. It's us versus them now. Everybody is a suspect, even if there was no crime.
An old school acquaintence of mine is on the local force. He has the nickname "Crazy Cop" because of his tendency to esalate every encounter. He recently put himself in the hospital doing a kick-in at a residence on a "disturbance" call. You guessed it-wrong house. There was an elderly woman inside who could not hear the cop pounding on the door, so he drew his weapon and performed an unsupported dynamic entry. Had he not shattered his leg in the attempt it could have gone very badly for an innocent woman. In the end there was no disturbance to be found, and the whole incident was written off as kids playing. I'm still trying to figure out what sort of "probably cause" the injured officer was operating under.
That was a heck of a kick to shatter his own leg. He needs lay off the steroids...
There are times when I think that cops watch too much TV and try to make their job just like it is on the boob-tube (or was, before I stopped watching...).
The cops were called by the resident. That's how this whole case started. Exigent circumstances necessarily includes the possibility that a citizen asks an officer for help.
We have people here arguing that unless an officer comes with a warrant in all circumstances the new Indiana law allows somebody to shoot the officer.
Are you really arguing on their behalf?
My point is a simple one ~ in any future debate before the Indiana Supreme court, or the federal courts, the history of the legislation is going to be entered as evidence. That legislation starts in response to a court decision that deals with a specific case where a citizen called the cops for help.
You cannot escape that happening once this ever gets brought before the appellate courts.
It is pretty clear that the legislation ALSO reduces the privilege of a citizen to call on the cops for help.
That's all you need to know to begin discussing the "Who struck John's.
The legislation misses the target entirely ~ the target is political ~ an inadequate Justice and his two misguided buddies.
They needed to be removed.
The legislation that resulted from this degrades the rights of ordinary citizens ~ you and I ~ to request police assistance.
The law just changed. You will tire of it.
I think I have a better suggestion. How about simply serving the warrant with a knock on the door like civilized folk?
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.