this is worrisome
- Thread starter hdroadglide
- Start date
JNT
The Bull
I dont understand this hang up on a warrant. I show up at your house with a warrant, how do you know I didn't draft it up and put a signature on it? That will have to be disputed later in court.
The fact is, if the police come, and they want entry, the time to dispute their lawfulness is not at your doorstep. What does a corrupted tipster,or anything else have to do with stopping the police from entering, and escalating it to a violent encounter.
I believe the phrase is judged by 12 then carried by 6.
Fighting the police trying to gain entry to your premise isn't going to somehow lessen the cost of the ensuing legal battle in court, it will only make it worse, and your not going to stop them.
You think shooting at the police, or fighting them off is going to make them go away? They'll just pack up, and say fuck it, lets move on to another innocent person, and screw them around instead.
You dont know their grounds, or what information they have at the time to accurately decide if their entry is lawful. Thats what judges are paid for.
The fact is, if the police come, and they want entry, the time to dispute their lawfulness is not at your doorstep. What does a corrupted tipster,or anything else have to do with stopping the police from entering, and escalating it to a violent encounter.
I believe the phrase is judged by 12 then carried by 6.
Fighting the police trying to gain entry to your premise isn't going to somehow lessen the cost of the ensuing legal battle in court, it will only make it worse, and your not going to stop them.
You think shooting at the police, or fighting them off is going to make them go away? They'll just pack up, and say fuck it, lets move on to another innocent person, and screw them around instead.
You dont know their grounds, or what information they have at the time to accurately decide if their entry is lawful. Thats what judges are paid for.
r3db4r0n
BoM Jan '11
I was a little undecided on the issue at first only because I didn't fully understand it, after reading your post I see now see no real problem with this ruling.
I think it might have been mentioned in lengthier posts but in my limited reaching legal mind......
If the cops didn't illegally force entry, the man wouldn't have have pushed the officer, the other officer wouldn't have over reacted, the dude wouldn't have got the stun gun, and this wouldn't have been a goddamn court case. So however long it took to get this through the court system doesn't change that the officers probably did something they shouldn't have. As far as I'm concerned the cop trying to force his way in the house (I'm assuming by trying to walk through the man whom received the stun) started the escalation.
Now I don't condone resistance because I like my shoulder joints the way they are, and I would rather not feel voltage like that. I've been shocked by my old GM 350 distributor cap one too many times while adjusting my timing (damn loose plug wire) to know I never want to get hit by a stun gun. As a limited government, small govt, anti police state citizen I don't like the sounds of that one bit. If the douches at the US Supreme Court don't overturn that I see a domino effect rolling across the country being tweaked little by little. This is a foot in the door. Say hello to conspiracy theory type shit from Fahrenheit 451.
If the cops didn't illegally force entry, the man wouldn't have have pushed the officer, the other officer wouldn't have over reacted, the dude wouldn't have got the stun gun, and this wouldn't have been a goddamn court case. So however long it took to get this through the court system doesn't change that the officers probably did something they shouldn't have. As far as I'm concerned the cop trying to force his way in the house (I'm assuming by trying to walk through the man whom received the stun) started the escalation.
Now I don't condone resistance because I like my shoulder joints the way they are, and I would rather not feel voltage like that. I've been shocked by my old GM 350 distributor cap one too many times while adjusting my timing (damn loose plug wire) to know I never want to get hit by a stun gun. As a limited government, small govt, anti police state citizen I don't like the sounds of that one bit. If the douches at the US Supreme Court don't overturn that I see a domino effect rolling across the country being tweaked little by little. This is a foot in the door. Say hello to conspiracy theory type shit from Fahrenheit 451.
And how do you 'bar illegal entry' without it resorting to something that can be considered 'attacking the officer'. I could be mistaken, but I'm willing to bet that just about any physical contact would be construed as 'assault'. Further, how many here truly know the law well enough to judge 'illegal entry'?
Sorry, but I'm not taking the article's word for that. And how would it be overturned? The article already suggests that the entry was illegal (though it doesn't say clearly). This case wasnt about whether or not the officers were correct in going into the house. The ruling doesn't grant any extra powers or rights to the police. Cases are overturned all the time because it is found someone violated some portion of the 4th. It didn't keep them from doing so in the first place.
We are looking at this from hindsight. Try to see it from the viewpoint of 'this is happening now'. Are we now saying it is up to the homeowner to decide when the police officer at the door has Probable Cause to enter the home?
Well with that said what does the ruling of this case even matter? If probable cause is up to the officers, and we know it is, then the ruling was just a BS way to uphold a left to interpretation privilege (as far as I know) of the officers when it comes to home entry or car searches for instance.
This is more of a question for our fine law enforcing brothers. What happens if you were to force entry into a house or search a vehicle under the premise of probable cause but you find nothing illegal? Can the citizen then file a civil suit against the PD for violation of rights because probable cause seems like a subjective item of contention that can be argued. Unless it's well defined, which I wouldn't know, because I only ever showed up to assist police after a house was entered and they found explosives/suspected explosives.
This is more of a question for our fine law enforcing brothers. What happens if you were to force entry into a house or search a vehicle under the premise of probable cause but you find nothing illegal? Can the citizen then file a civil suit against the PD for violation of rights because probable cause seems like a subjective item of contention that can be argued. Unless it's well defined, which I wouldn't know, because I only ever showed up to assist police after a house was entered and they found explosives/suspected explosives.