Police don't have to knock, CNN article
Police don't have to knock, justices say
Alito's vote breaks 4-4 tie in police search case
Thursday, June 15, 2006; Posted: 12:22 p.m. EDT (16:22 GMT)
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia called the failure to knock a "preliminary misstep."
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police armed with a warrant can barge into homes and seize evidence even if they don't knock, a huge government victory that was decided by President Bush's new justices.
The 5-4 ruling clearly signals the court's conservative shift following the departure of moderate Sandra Day O'Connor.
The case tested previous court rulings that police armed with warrants generally must knock and announce themselves or they run afoul of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said Detroit police acknowledge violating that rule when they called out their presence at a man's door then went inside three seconds to five seconds later.
"Whether that preliminary misstep had occurred or not, the police would have executed the warrant they had obtained, and would have discovered the gun and drugs inside the house," Scalia wrote.
But suppressing evidence is too high of a penalty, Scalia said, for errors by police in failing to properly announce themselves.
The outcome might have been different if O'Connor were still on the bench. She seemed ready, when the case was first argued in January, to rule in favor of Booker Hudson, whose house was searched in 1998.
O'Connor had worried aloud that officers around the country might start bursting into homes to execute search warrants. She asked: "Is there no policy of protecting the home owner a little bit and the sanctity of the home from this immediate entry?"
She retired before the case was decided, and a new argument was held so that Justice Samuel Alito could participate in deliberations. Alito and Bush's other Supreme Court pick, Chief Justice John Roberts, both supported Scalia's opinion.
Hudson's lawyers argued that evidence against him was connected to the improper search and could not be used against him.
Scalia said that a victory for Hudson would have given "a get-out-of-jail-free card" to him and others.
In a dissent, four justices complained that the decision erases more than 90 years of Supreme Court precedent.
"It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for himself and the three other liberal members.
Breyer said that police will feel free to enter homes without knocking and waiting a short time if they know that there is no punishment for it.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a moderate, joined the conservatives in most of the ruling. He wrote his own opinion, however, to say "it bears repeating that it is a serious matter if law enforcement officers violate the sanctity of the home by ignoring the requisites of lawful entry."
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
I'll tell you this... if someone did this to my house they would get shot, period. My 2nd trumps your 4th.
An unconstitutional law is not a law. Simple.
:Flush: Who is up for a ride?
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said Detroit police acknowledge violating that rule when they called out their presence at a man's door then went inside three seconds to five seconds later....
I'll tell you this... if someone did this to my house they would get shot, period. My 2nd trumps your 4th.
An unconstitutional law is not a law. Simple.
Speaking as an armed citizen myself, I think you should consider your position before you shoot a cop
who has "annouced his presence and authority" and then forcibly entered your home
three to five seconds later. I think the court would take a very dim view of your justification for deadly force.
At the same time I'm mindful that a number of home invasions have occurred where the bad guys have *claimed* to be LEOs on entry.
The consitutional privacy issue here used to queer the search in the absence of exigent circumstances. Now apparently it doesn't even do that. But you'd better be prepared to show you were in reasonable fear of death or grevious bodily harm before you shoot someone.
Some interesting background here. That's really scary. Don't know if you guys have been follwing the news from over here just recently; police barged into a family home they suspected of housing terrorists and shot a young man in the chest...yep, shot him in the chest. Never mind knocking and waiting, they just broke through their door in the morning whilst the family were still asleep and when one of the men came running down the stairs in his pyjamas ...shot him in the chest...did i mention they shot him in the chest?
What did they do after they shot him in the chest? Well, one of them grabbed him by the feet and dragged him down the stairs, his head banging on each step on the way down and then dropped him ( yes dropped him) onto the floor.
Then they lied about it to the press and claimed he was a terrorist who resisted....He turned out to be (unsurprisingly given their recent form) innocent. Well...innocent of the crime, but unfortunately guilty of being of Pakistani descent.
I should add that under the law in my state, the law of justification does state
(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of property.--The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary:
1. to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or other trespass upon land or a trespass against or the unlawful carrying away of tangible movable property, if such land or movable property is, or is believed by the actor to be, in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts...
But again, this turn on the entry being
unlawful. An LEO entering with a warrant isn't unlawful.
What if he shoots you in the chest?
That's really scary...
Maybe.
I'm going to the UK for a few days in July, and I'll be completely disarmed the entire time. Pardon me, but I find that a bit scarier than the fact that LEOs might get to keep the evidence they find upon entering my house with a warrant in hand even though they didn't wait long enough after knocking.
What if he shoots you in the chest?
What if who shoots whom in the chest?
What's really depressing about this, for me, is that whilst the rest of us assume America will be heavy handed in other peoples' countries, we also assume she will safeguard her own peoples' liberties more strongly.
(unless of course you're darkskinned in which case we assume your police will be as racist as ours and shoot you in the chest)
What if who shoots whom in the chest?
What if the LEO shoots the householder in the chest?
What if the LEO shoots the householder in the chest?
Sounds like murder to me. I'd want to hear the cops side of it, of course.
(after checking) Looks like their side of it is "we're sorry". It's evidently not murder mostly because the person shot didn't die.
You couldn't pay me enough to be a cop in the UK...everybody is completely disarmed but the criminals and some of the cops.
I'm going to the UK for a few days in July, and I'll be completely disarmed the entire time
Unless you look like an Arab or a Pakistani you'll be fine. Very few guns over here compared to over there and very few gun deaths.
If we look at America's record over the years, we could probably find many more incidents of people being shot by police unnecessarily than over here. You'll be fine:P
Unless you look like an Arab or a Pakistani you'll be fine. Very few guns over here compared to over there and very few gun deaths.
Yes, the thugs don't need guns, apparently they're getting by with knives.
It's not your cops I'm thinking of. And just to put a button on it all, I'll be there on 7/7.
Maggie, the man survived.
Unfortunately, the young man they shot on the underground (Brazilian, darkish skinned, mistaken identity) died. They also lied about him too.
2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm
2006
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5077198.stm
Unfortunately our police have developed what appears to be a habit of releasing immediate statements which turn out to be untrue, followed by a revised statement a day or so later and then a few days after that we get the truth.
Initially after the Brazilian lad was shot, they claimed they had shouted at him to stop and he ran into the station, jumped over the barrier and onto the train.
It was later revealed, by eyewitnesses that no warning had been shouted and the lad in fact had been running for a train....nor did he jump over the barrier.
The police ran onto the stationary train ....then two of them dragged him to the floor and the third pumped 7 bullets into him at point blank range.
Turns out, he had come out of the block of flats they'd been watching.....unfortunately, one of the poeple watching the flats had nipped off for a quick piss and wasn't sure if he had come from the right flat, but hey, he had dark skin and that made him suspicious.
Later when they published pictures of him, they showed a picture which made him look quite pale. That same picture was later shown to be of a much darker hue. The suggestion is that they altered the picture to off set the accusations of racism.
If we look at America's record over the years, we could probably find many more incidents of people being shot by police unnecessarily than over here.
Probably so...considering your cops haven't been allowed to have guns for very long and the population of the UK is about 60 million vs. 260 million here.
But I'll stop hi-jacking this thread now :P
So, how bout that? No need to knock!
population of the UK is about 60 million vs. 260 million here.
:P
Seriously, Maggie. You'll have a nice time here. The crime rate isn't as high as it sounds in th news. We have very few knife attacks as well. Mostly that sort of thing affects very localised 'hotspots' and usually involves young lads and lasses in difficult areas.
For the most part it's a very safe country.
*smiles*
Bit like...If I were to holiday in America...I would imagine I'd be fine if I went to Ohio, but not necessarily if I went to South Central:P Liekwise, if you go to most places in the UK you'll be fine. Just be careful if you are planning a holiday on a run down Council estate in Hackney:P
I'm not seriously worried...I just resent being disarmed involuntarily, even for a few days. I won't go to New Jersey for exactly that reason. Or South Central. ;-)
http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtmlPersonally I would feel in more danger if I had a gun in my bag than without :P Statistics have shown that when someone pulls a gun in a conflict, they are actually most likely to be the one that gets shot with it ( this carries through on knives as well).
Speaking as an armed citizen myself, I think you should consider your position before you shoot a cop who has "annouced his presence and authority" and then forcibly entered your home three to five seconds later. I think the court would take a very dim view of your justification for deadly force.
At the same time I'm mindful that a number of home invasions have occurred where the bad guys have *claimed* to be LEOs on entry.
The consitutional privacy issue here used to queer the search in the absence of exigent circumstances. Now apparently it doesn't even do that. But you'd better be prepared to show you were in reasonable fear of death or grevious bodily harm before you shoot someone.
Some interesting background here.
Google FL Castle Doctrine. Anyone can call out "I'm a cop", its what I would do if I were home invading.
Having to post these again...
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”
-- Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 45 (Virginia Convention, June 5, 1788).
“God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed... what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.”
-- Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith on Nov. 13, 1787. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd, vol. 12, p. 356 (1955).
Google FL Castle Doctrine.
Hey , I'm one of the co-founders of the
Delaware Valley chapter of the
Pink Pistols. I know what the Castle Doctrine is, and we've had it here in PA a heckuva lot longer than Florida has. (I hold a Florida Concealed Weapons Permit as well as a Pennsylvania Licence to Carry Firearms, by the way). I'm a firm believer in RKBA and your right to defend your home from invasion.
I'm just reminding you that if you shoot a cop who has announced himself while executing a warrant, you'd better be able to convince a judge that you reasonably believed him to not be a cop, even if he didn't give you a lot of time to think about it before crashing the door.
Annoucing on the record in a public forum that you've already decided to shoot first certainly won't help your case.
Hey , I'm one of the co-founders of the Delaware Valley chapter of the Pink Pistols. I know what the Castle Doctrine is, and we've had it here in PA a heckuva lot longer than Florida has. (I hold a Florida Concealed Weapons Permit as well as a Pennsylvania Licence to Carry Firearms, by the way). I'm a firm beleiver in RKBA and your right to defend your home from invasion.
I'm just reminding you that if you shoot a cop who has announced himself while executing a warrant, you'd better be able to convince a judge that you reasonably believed him to not be a cop, even if he didn't give you a lot of time to think about it before crashing the door.
Annoucing on the record in a public forum that you've already decided to shoot first certainly won't help your case.
If I don't see the warrant, the cop and their badge... they are not a cop.
I am not announcing anything, I am saying that I will shoot home invaders posing as cops barging into my home. I don't know who they are until they
show me who they are.
Of course this will be moot soon, our family is moving back onto decent property where they will have to stop at a gate and approach the house only with our consent. (Parents and my family are combining homes soon and making it chair friendly). This is how I grew-up, I miss having more space and cannot wait. I also miss the security of a compound.
Most police have become confused about who they work for and who's rights they are protecting. They don't see that protect and serve on their cars any longer. The rights of the citizens must come first,
always.
I had a cop pull me over once and would not tell me why. He became very belligerent about getting my ID and reg. I asked him why he pulled me over, over and over again, he just kept getting angrier. I finally told him that I was going to leave if he did not tell me why he pulled me over. "Either charge me with something or I will leave".
Turns out I had a light out over my license plate, but that was not the real problem... I am white and he wanted to know why I stopped in the "neighborhood" I was in. I told him none of his damn business (I was looking for something in the car) and asked if I was going to get a ticket. He said no and get the light fixed. It was just loose.
He was just being an ass. Nothing more, he could have been polite, but did not feel I had any rights... this is common. I questioned him, politely at first. Regardless of that, he was upset by it, it should be the other way around. He should have just pulled me over and informed me of the light being out and that should have been the end of it.
If you don't see a crime, it did not happen... why I was in a certain neighborhood is none of his damn business. Profiling is a sickness we need to end.
Sad that the cops that do their jobs the way they are supposed to are today's best heroes, and those training them are teaching them to destroy what this nation was built upon.
I'm not seriously worried...I just resent being disarmed involuntarily, even for a few days. I won't go to New Jersey for exactly that reason. Or South Central. ;-)
Just out of curiosity -- did something happen to you to make you fear being out in public this much without a weapon or are the areas where you go really that bad?
Sad that the cops that do their jobs the way they are supposed to are today's best heroes, and those training them are teaching them to destroy what this nation was built upon.
If cops enter your house with no knock and you are not engaged in any unlawful activities you're going to have to assume they are not legit. That sounds like a bad deal for everybody. Someone is very likely to get hurt. It seems like aside from the terror stuff, the home invasions probably target drugs. There's yet another reason to end the drug war.
Just out of curiosity -- did something happen to you to make you fear being out in public this much without a weapon or are the areas where you go really that bad?
I do live near some bad areas. But let's not confuse "being fearful" with wishing to assert my right to self-defense, and resenting interference with that right. Did you visit the Pink Pistols site?
The State has no legitimate interest in disarming me, yet too many small-s states (and some smaller jursidictions like Philadelphia and San Francisco) still want to do exactly that. I see no reason to go through the additional hassle to secure my weapon in order to travel to a place where the government doesn't trust me with it. (I'm making a special limited exception for the UK for a few days because that's where my daughter wants to get married.)
Not trusting citizens to be armed is a remarkable touchstone for other crappy attitudes on the part of government.
If cops enter your house with no knock and you are not engaged in any unlawful activities you're going to have to assume they are not legit. That sounds like a bad deal for everybody. Someone is very likely to get hurt. It seems like aside from the terror stuff, the home invasions probably target drugs. There's yet another reason to end the drug war.
The "home invasions" referred to upthread weren't by cops, they were by robbers claiming to be cops while entering. And the case cited in the CNN article
[B]did not involve a no-knock entry[/B], although some folks seem to be trying very hard to portray it as if it did.
All that said, the "war on drugs" is a crock.
I do live near some bad areas. But let's not confuse "being fearful" with wishing to assert my right to self-defense, and resenting interference with that right.
...
Not trusting citizens to be armed is a remarkable touchstone for other crappy attitudes on the part of government.
My sentiments as well. I don't carry, but I do own firearms. There is great value in the State's administrators knowing that the people still retain the capacity to use force. A State monopoly on such is not how people stay free.
I do live near some bad areas. But let's not confuse "being fearful" with wishing to assert my right to self-defense, and resenting interference with that right. Did you visit the Pink Pistols site?
That's cool. I'm just interested in people's reasons for carrying even though, in truth, you don't have to have one at all to do so.
Funny, that: I used to carry because I traversed some bad neighborhoods, but it was the fear of local law enforcement that caused me to stop packing.
When it comes to gun control, I feel protected enough that everyone else has one. The bad guys don't know that I dont. Even if I did, I wouldnt use it.
EDIT: unless my girlfriend is threatened. There'll be holy hell to pay for anyone who threatens her. But thats a different matter. Kinda.
Gents...ladies...you're just worrying too much. If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. Just a few bucks to repair your door and patch the holes they tear into your walls, and perhaps some medical bills if you get shot in the chest...that's all.
Remember, by giving up your constitutional rights a little bit at a time, it is much less painful than having the Ultraconservative Fascists take over in a nasty coup. Plus, you'll be ever so much safer with each right that you give up. Remember...its for the children.
When it comes to gun control, I feel protected enough that everyone else has one. The bad guys don't know that I dont. Even if I did, I wouldnt use it.
Absolutely the best reason for you not to have them.
This is worth a read.I personally believe in absolute gun control -- I think nobody, NOBODY should have them. In practice, however, that's stupid, for all the reasons you've mentioned time and time again. Therefore, I take the same stance on guns that I take on eating meat; I wish nobody owned or used guns, but since thats not going to happen, I can at least not use one myself.
I personally believe in absolute gun control -- I think nobody, NOBODY should have them...I wish nobody owned or used guns...
This is perhaps some new meaning of "beleive in" which which I am not familiar. It appears to be related to "wish for". :-)
So you'd be happy to return to the situation of medevial days where the physically smaller and weaker person was at the mercy of the larger and stronger.
Well, okay, yeah, that has its flaws too, and you're right, more like wish for than believe in... What can I say? I'm an idealist.
I'll repost all of these here...
To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." ~George Mason~
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." —Jeff Snyder
TJ on Disarming Public
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for
the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage
than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater
confidence than an armed man."
-Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”
-- Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 45 (Virginia Convention, June 5, 1788).
“God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed... what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.”
-- Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith on Nov. 13, 1787. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd, vol. 12, p. 356 (1955).
“I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426, June 16, 1788
“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
-- Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (February 6, 1788).
“Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.” - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis (1856-1941), Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357 (1927)
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person
were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified
in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would
be justified in silencing mankind.”- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard
even his enemy from opposition: for if he violates this duty he
establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. ”- Thomas Paine,
Dissertation On First Principles Of Government
The Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791
“Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime . . . .” - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, dissenting Ginzberg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966)
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” - Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
The few times I've been through the "justice mill" (all being non-felony), I was reminded over and over, by lawyers and judges, that I should not apply reason or practical thinking. The law must be followed regardless of whether it makes sense in the particular instance. Their hue and cry is "We are a nation of laws".
OK, but in this instance, the Supremes are saying the law says one thing but practical considerations are more important, so the law comes second. WTF?:eek:
OK, but in this instance, the Supremes are saying the law says one thing but practical considerations are more important, so the law comes second. WTF?
No, the Supremes are *interpreting* the law..that being their job. That's how this issue became "law" in the first place; it is in fact based on precedent itself based on a common law principle.
In Wilson v. Arkansas,1 decided in 1995, a unanimous Supreme Court held for the first time that whether police "knock and announce" their presence before executing valid search warrants is part of the Fourth Amendment inquiry into the reasonableness of a search.
There's no written law that actually says police must knock and announce.
[SIZE="5"]And in the case we're discussing the cops did in fact knock and announce
[/SIZE]
I'm quite impressed by the ability of folks to project their beliefs onto this with utter disregard for the facts of the case, the law and the decision.
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!
~ William Pitt
[SIZE="5"]And in the case we're discussing the cops did in fact knock and announce
[/SIZE]
True. Unfortunately, the exclusionary rule has been gutted so we can expect no-knock next time.
True. Unfortunately, the exclusionary rule has been gutted so we can expect no-knock next time.
How long after knock and announce do the cops have to wait before entering before you think the exclusionary rule should not apply?
Only long enough to flush? Or do they need thirty days written notice?
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!
~ William Pitt
Very moving and poetic. And in the absence of a warrant, applicable.
But these cops had a warrant.
Very moving and poetic. And in the absence of a warrant, applicable.
But these cops had a warrant.
But with the anti-terrorism laws we may be moving to a period of warrentless searches.
If you look at how RICO laws have expanded beyond their original scope, it's not hard to see that we might be at the top of a slippery slope period for searches. After all, if warrantless searches can be justified to keep us safe from terrorists, doesn't that imply consent to allow warrentless searches from dangerous criminals? Couldn't the definition of 'terrorist' be applied to street gangs or a disgruntled citizen sitting on a large cache of weapons?
This probably sounds alarmist, but consider the votes in Congress on flag burning, the 'support the troops' amendment, etc. Congressmen are so intent on keeping their jobs they will ignore the Constitution and common sense to vote for what they think the public wants, short-sighted or not. If they think they are still getting a 'safety at any cost' vibe from the public, they might actually approve something like that.
The question is would the Supreme Court allow it?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The above clearly states the need for warrants. However, with the 'warrantless wiretap' issue, we are seeing a move towards public safety at any cost and the brushing aside of the judicial branch, even a
FISA court that could review the situation two days later.
So, the question becomes, how long will it take for this policy to start sliding down the slippery slope from terrorism to anti-crime? And how long before 'disgruntled citizen' becomes 'terrorist suspect' or 'proto-terrorist'? After all, if McVeigh or Kaczynski had been prolific bloggers, isn't it possible that they might have been caught early if blogs, bulletin boards, and e-mails could have been searched and filtered, then reviewed by profilers?
Of course, this would leave out the 'oath and affirmation' portion of the Amendment, which was included to prevent this kind of circumstantial justification. Which would make judicial review difficult. However, if warrants are no longer required, there is no barrier between suspicion and action. This could result in a warrantless no-knock entry.
Are all of the pieces in place for this dystopian view? No. Are some of the pieces in place. Yes. Do we have a Congress whose majority respects the Constitution over any short-term political considerations? Probably not.
My biggest problem is the whole 'who gets to say who is and isn't a terrorist' thing. Am I a terrorist if I... have an automatic weapon? If I... have the equipment to make poisons? If I... want Bush out of office?
Where do they draw the line? Who makes the descisions? If the courts are ignored... nobody. THAT's the problem, for me.
This probably sounds alarmist...
Yes, it does..as does this whole thing.
What I'm seeing is a lot of artificial hysteria, then when someone points out the actual facts of the case it's followed by "well, it *could* happen next time" fog and FUD. Meanwhile the sheep who don't read carefully are primed to panic again for the next dose.
How the bloody hell can a headline "Police don't have to knock" be justified reporting a court case where the police knocked?
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police armed with a warrant can barge into homes and seize evidence even if they don't knock
That's a lie, displayed as a bolded subhead. The ruling
(Read it here) does not say that. I just can't imagine where people get the idea that the mainstream press has a liberal bias.
The case tested previous court rulings that police armed with warrants generally must knock and announce themselves or they run afoul of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said Detroit police acknowledge violating that rule when they called out their presence at a man's door then went inside three seconds to five seconds later.
"Whether that preliminary misstep had occurred or not, the police would have executed the warrant they had obtained, and would have discovered the gun and drugs inside the house," Scalia wrote.
But suppressing evidence is too high of a penalty, Scalia said, for errors by police in failing to properly announce themselves.
That part is factual.
This is called "inevitable discovery"...the court refused to exclude the evidence of the drugs and a (presumably illegally posessed) gun just because the police didn't wait longer than three to five seconds before entering after knock and announce, and therefore their announcement was claimed to be defective.
There's "exigent circumstances" provisions in the rules for search and seziure...three of them in particular (see the link to the 1976 FBI paper on "knock and announce" I've posted here twice). Given the nature of the evidence in question I think convincing arguments could be made for two of the three.
But if folks are intent on screaming that this is Yet Another Sign Of The Impending Fascist Apocalypse, far be it from me to spoil their fun by continuing to try to draw attention to the facts.
But if folks are intent on screaming that this is Yet Another Sign Of The Impending Fascist Apocalypse, far be it from me to spoil their fun by continuing to try to draw attention to the facts.
I agree that the thread title was misleading.
However, I do have an issue with watering down the fourth amendment. Just remember that technically, the person into whose house the police are storming is innocent.
In cases in the past this has been proven to be true, sometimes with
fatal results.
During raids, police are concerned with their own safety, sometimes more than for that of the individuals they are arresting. Unfortunately, innocent people are more at risk than criminals. A true criminal being raided can choose to fight, flee, or surrender. He or she probably has enough experience and the knowledge of his or her guilt to at least expect the possiblity of a raid and therefore has the time to prepare. Also, through actual experience or by those of associates, has the knowledge to prepare a response.
An innocent person has no such preparation. If we are occupied at some task in our houses, watching TV, reading a paper, etc, how many of us would be able to process a sudden knock at the door and a muffled word in 3 to 5 seconds? At night, how many would recognize the intruders as police? Of the Cellar users with guns, how many might have already drawn a weapon by the time the police cleared the door?
Turning police into home invaders might catch more criminals, but it also puts the public at risk.
I agree that the thread title was misleading.
But it's more than "the thread title".
It's the headline on CNN, and probably anyplace else that picked it up from the AP wire. And it's *not true*. Neither is the subhead. They are propiganda, crafted with the intent of adding one more log of falsehood to an already-burning fire.
The presumption of innocence before the law is a good and noble thing as it applies to adjudication and punishment. But police simply can't behave--especially when they are executing a warrant--as if they beleive *everybody* must be innocent; they must allow for the *possibilty* that some people inside a dwelling may *not* be innocent. Obviously if everybody was presumed to be innocent at all times, no warrants, searches or seizures would ever be necessary.
The rules for search and seizure in general and knock and announce in particular are crafted with this in mind. This is also discussed in the court's opinion.
The court in this case weighed conflicting principles and decided the evidence in this case should not be excluded, and that the holding of inevitable discovery was convincing.
The Fourth Amendment that you claim is "weakened" by this case states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". After reading the court's opinion, including the facts of the case I'm simply unable to conclude this search and seizure was unreasonable.
Can we expect you to begin supporting the Bill of Rights again when the Democrats take over or is this a permanent position?
The Fourth Amendment that you claim is "weakened" by this case states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". After reading the court's opinion, including the facts of the case I'm simply unable to conclude this search and seizure was unreasonable.
The difference is what you perceive from the results of THIS case. The court, meanwhile, must define conditions for ALL cases just like this. All cases where a conclusion is not yet known. Where occupants are neither guilty nor innocent. Only some are suspect and not everyone inside is known.
Scalia's decision says that in this case, facts after the event justify how the raid was conducted. The court says these were dangerous criminals - a threat to all civilians. Fine if they were. That means they had so much drugs that they could not possibly destroy evidence.
If by knocking, occupants would have time to destroy evidence, then so little material existed as to not make these people 'dangerous criminals'. If so little material existed that these people could destroy the evidence in 5 seconds, then they were pathetic addicts who really needed treatment - not felony convictions. If these people were truly that guilty of a felony, then 5 seconds could never destroy the evidence.
Which then asks what was this evidence, so massive, as to make them 'dangerous criminals'?
Can we expect you to begin supporting the Bill of Rights again when the Democrats take over or is this a permanent position?
That's two unwarranted assumptions at once. Try to limit it to just one per sentence.
If by knocking, occupants would have time to destroy evidence...
One more time: the cops *did* knock. Do try to ignore the false headline and subhead...I know it's hard.
Which then asks what was this evidence, so massive, as to make them 'dangerous criminals'?
Given the loaded, concealed, easily available and illegally-posessed firearm, I'd say they were plenty dangerous to cops executing a warrant. Just think: had these defendants had adopted rkzenrage's policy re: home invasions? Most home invasions I know of with the invaders pretending to be cops have been drug thefts.
One more time: the cops *did* knock. Do try to ignore the false headline and subhead...I know it's hard.
Given the loaded, concealed, easily available and illegally-posessed firearm, I'd say they were plenty dangerous to cops executing a warrant. Just think: had these defendants had adopted rkzenrage's policy re: home invasions? Most home invasions I know of with the invaders pretending to be cops have been drug thefts.
And if they raid the wrong address? Is one cry of 'police' and 3-5 seconds really reasonable?
From your link.
The officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house, or any part of a house, or anything therein, to execute a search warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance or when necessary to liberate himself or a person aiding him in the execution of the warrant
So if the suspect cannot make it to the door in 3-5 seconds to let the cops in, he has refused admittance?
Given the loaded, concealed, easily available and illegally-posessed firearm, I'd say they were plenty dangerous to cops executing a warrant.
Ever see cops execute a warrant on a dangerous suspect? The time between the shouting of "POLICE!" and the battering ram causing the door to explode inwards is about a millisecond, perhaps with a stingball tossed for good measure.
I fail to see how the requirement of police annoucing themselves poses a threat when tactics like that are used regularly.
No, the Supremes are *interpreting* the law..that being their job. That's how this issue became "law" in the first place; it is in fact based on precedent itself based on a common law principle.
And the fourth amendment to the Constitution which was written specifically to prevent this shit.
There's no written law that actually says police must knock and announce.
See above. It's been in force for over two hundred years and reinforced by the Supremes numerous times between 1917 and 1997, plus state laws in 34 states & DC, so don't tell me it was not the law of the land.
[SIZE="5"]And in the case we're discussing the cops did in fact knock and announce[/SIZE]
[SIZE="5"]WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO LIMIT THE DISCUSSION TO HUDSON VS MICHIGAN?[/SIZE] If they did "knock and announce" why did it get all the way to the Supremes? Somebody along the way, thought not, including the arresting officers:
(Officer)Good testified at an evidentiary hearing that the officers didn’t knock on the front door and waited three to five seconds after announcing themselves as the police before they entered. The prosecutor in the case acknowledged that three to five seconds wasn’t a reasonable warning for Hudson to answer the door, and conceded the officers violated the knock and announce requirement.
I (and I don't think I'm alone) am discussing how the Supremes took away my right to a reasonable chance to put my pants on and open the door before they knock it down.
I'm quite impressed by the ability of folks to project their beliefs onto this with utter disregard for the facts of the case, the law and the decision.
I'm impressed by your attempt to discuss Hudson vs Michigan, change the facts and totally disregard the orders of magnitude more important change in everyones rights.
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
I (and I don't think I'm alone) am discussing how the Supremes took away my right to a reasonable chance to put my pants on and open the door before they knock it down.
xoB, perhaps this can be prevented if you give your local law enforcement agency a set of keys to your house along with a limited power of attorney authorizing them to use said keys should they ever obtain a search warrant!
@ those who were discussing the ramifications of the human "fight or flight" response to potentially startling situations like the aforementioned: I hold this truth to be self evident that regardless of the legalities of a situation in which I perceive an immediate threat to my life,
IT'S BETTER TO BE TRIED BY TWELVE THAN CARRIED BY SIX. I will adjust my real time reaction accordingly. I have no intrinsic fear of law enforcement officers. They would really have to fail in their overall performance before they could provoke me; but, it could happen. If it did, they would simply have a bad day (a good day being any day they make it home at the end of their shift).
[SIZE="5"]WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO LIMIT THE DISCUSSION TO HUDSON VS MICHIGAN?[/SIZE]
Because that's the case that was decided and the facts it was decided on.
If they did "knock and announce" why did it get all the way to the Supremes? Somebody along the way, thought not, including the arresting officers:
Because the guys with the dope and the gun thought they should get off because the cops opened an unlocked door only three to five seconds after they knocked on it and announced themselves.
I infer that you agree with them. I agree with the Supremes. Did you read the decision? Or just the hysterical AP wire copy?
I (and I don't think I'm alone) am discussing how the Supremes took away my right to a reasonable chance to put my pants on and open the door before they knock it down.I'm impressed by your attempt to discuss Hudson vs Michigan, change the facts and totally disregard the orders of magnitude more important change in everyones rights.
You
can discuss anything you want. But what you just said isn't what happened in this decision. The excusionary rule wasn't absolute even before this case. The justices made a judgement applying all the rules to the facts of the case; that's their job. You claim your rights have been "changed by orders of magnitude". I don't think your rights have changed at all.
What might possibly actually change by orders of magnitude is your understanding of the law...but only if you also read and understand the descision itself instead of only the bleating of a liberal press intent on raising a panic over the fact that the composition of the Supremes is more conservatve than it used to be.
Despite your "liberal press" clichés what the Supremes have said, is there is no penalty for ignoring the
"knock and announce" law (yes law), that has been an essential part of the very fabric of our rights and freedom.
Not a slippery slope but a precipice, to nail one stinking drug dealer.:(
They would really have to fail in their overall performance before they could provoke me; but, it could happen. If it did, they would simply have a bad day (a good day being any day they make it home at the end of their shift).
Well, in their process, giving the homeowner as little notice as possible is a peformance goal. This works out well unless they have the wrong house.
Despite your "liberal press" clichés what the Supremes have said, is there is no penalty for ignoring the
"knock and announce" law
Obviously I can't make you read the decision, you've already made up your mind as to what it says. And you're wrong.
I read the fucking decision, already.
Are you telling me that in this ruling, by seriously weakening the "exclusionary rule" they didn't remove the primary impediment to obeying the "knock and announce rule? You aren't naive enough to buy that, are you?
The Supremes (SCALIA) said "As far as we know, civil liability is an effective deterrent here, as we have assumed it is in other contexts."
Well, we all know what "assume" means.
They also say it's easy to get a lawyer to sue the cops for violations of your civil rights.
Yeah, if they beat you up enough for them to be sued for millions.
Oh, and they say the police now have training materials available to teach them what they're supposed to do and the police are more professional now.
That makes me believe the Supremes don't have much contact with the police, specifically below the federal and state level.
More professional? If that's what you call being more like the Marine Corps, i.e. better training in arms and tactical operations, not in attitude though.
I've seen the aftermath of local police home searches, three time in the last five years. The unnecessary destruction was incredible.
The videos I've seen of Marines searching Iraqi homes, show the Iraqis are better off.
I know being a cop is a tough, thankless, dangerous job. I wouldn't take it for any amount of money. But to "assume" these local Blue Knights, are above reproach is ludicrous.
To effectively kill the biggest deterrent to police misbehavior on the "knock and announce" law, seriously weakens my rights and freedom.
I'm smart enough to know that just because I'm not a drug dealer doesn't mean I don't have to worry about the cops kicking my door in.:headshake
I read the fucking decision, already.
Are you telling me that in this ruling, by seriously weakening the "exclusionary rule" they didn't remove the primary impediment to obeying the "knock and announce rule? You aren't naive enough to buy that, are you?
I'm just not naive enough to buy your assertion that that is what has happened here.
The cops, bearing a warrant, announced themselves and entered through an unlocked door after waiting three to five seconds. If failing to follow inevitable discovery of the gun and drugs in this case is really "serious weakening of the exclusionary rule", then the exclusionary rule really needed some serious weakening.
(Your stories about belongings being tossed for a search don't strike me as relevant to the issue at hand. But as long as you're dispensing anecdotes, here's one: I thought the exclusionary rule needed weakening when burglars made off with the sacramental silver of the church where my father was pastor, burning the church to the ground to cover the crime. One of the perps was stopped for a traffic violation blocks from the scene the next day. The silver, with the name of the church engraved on it, was on the seat of the car. But the perp walked because a city judge applied the exclusionary rule to the discovery of the stolen goods. They actually did get some of the silver back, but the church is gone forever, and the perps got off scot-free.)
Alito makes reference to lawsuits, training and professionalism
in the context of refuting Hudson's claim that massive deterrance is required because it is the only remedy for defective knock-and-announce. It isn't.
Here's that part of the opinion in context:
(b) This Court has rejected “ndiscriminate application” of the exclusionary rule, United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 908, holding it applicable only “where its deterrence benefits outweigh its ‘substantial social costs,’ ” Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U. S. 357, 363. Exclusion may not be premised on the mere fact that a constitutional violation was a “but-for” cause of obtaining the evidence. The illegal entry here was not the but-for cause, but even if it were, but-for causation can be too attenuated to justify exclusion. Attenuation can occur not only when the causal connection is remote, but also when suppression would not serve the interest protected bythe constitutional guarantee violated. The interests protected by the knock-and-announce rule include human life and limb (because an unannounced entry may provoke violence from a surprised resident), property (because citizens presumably would open the door upon an announcement, whereas a forcible entry may destroy it), and privacy and dignity of the sort that can be offended by a sudden entrance. But the rule has never protected one’s interest in preventing the government from seeing or taking evidence described in a warrant. Since the interests violated here have nothing to do with the seizure of the evidence, the exclusionary rule is inapplicable.
(c) The social costs to be weighed against deterrence are considerable here. In addition to the grave adverse consequence that excluding relevant incriminating evidence always entails—the risk of releasing dangerous criminals—imposing such a massive remedy would generate a constant flood of alleged failures to observe the rule, and claims that any asserted justification for a no-knock entry had inadequate support. Another consequence would be police officers’ refraining from timely entry after knocking and announcing, producing preventable violence against the officers in some cases, and the destruction of evidence in others. Next to these social costs are the deterrence benefits. The value of deterrence depends on the strength of the incentive to commit the forbidden act. That incentive is minimal here, where ignoring knock-and-announce can realistically be expected to achieve nothing but the prevention of evidence destruction and avoidance of life-threatening resistance, dangers which suspend the requirement when there is “reasonable suspicion” that they exist, (Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U. S. 385, 394). Massive deterrence is hardly necessary. Contrary to Hudson’s argument that without suppression there will be no deterrence, many forms of police misconduct are deterred by civil-rights suits, and by the consequences of increasing professionalism of police forces, including a new emphasis on internal police discipline.
This opinion "seriously weaknens the excusionary rule" only if the rule started off being the
[I]only consideration in the case of an arguably defective knock-and-announce. It wasn't before the ruling (see the cites), and it isn't now. Nor have either the exclusionary rule or knock-and-announce been overturned. It's just that the claim of a defective knock and announce is not a free-ride to exclude all the evidence that the search allowed by the warrant turns up.
Arguably defective knock and announce?? No, not arguably, I repeat:
(Officer)Good testified at an evidentiary hearing that the officers didn’t knock on the front door and waited three to five seconds after announcing themselves as the police before they entered. The prosecutor in the case acknowledged that three to five seconds wasn’t a reasonable warning for Hudson to answer the door, and conceded the officers violated the knock and announce requirement.
There was never an argument by anyone (except you) that the knock and Announce was defective.
I already quoted Alito's reasons why the knock and announce isn't needed to keep the police from running roughshod. I also told you why he's full of shit.
So to sum up your last post....you got nothing. :rolleyes:
Arguably defective knock and announce?? No, not arguably, I repeat:
There was never an argument by anyone (except you) that the knock and Announce was defective.
I don't think that given the circumstances that it
was defective, but
Michigan chose not to argue that point.
Note that the opinion observes that there's endless potential argument down that path (if five seconds after the announce isn't enough, is six? How about seven? How many knocks do there have to be? Is one enough? Two?)
Have you ever argued with a five year old? Anytime there is a secondary gain to them from extending debate with you, once you legitimize that there's something at issue there will be no end to the arguing. Hudson didn't give a shit about privacy or dignity here, that could indeed be addressed with a civl suit. What Hudson wanted here--his secondary gain--was a walk on the gun and the drugs, he could care less about your front door or whether you get your pants on when the cops serve a warrant, even though those are the very interests protected by knock-and-announce.
Because it presented a cleaner case, Michigan's strategy was to simply argue that
the remedy demanded by Hudson was inappropriate even if they stipulate knock-and-announce was defective. The Court agreed. I do too.
As you can see from the cites, the exclusionary rule has always been subject to competing interests, it isn't suddenly somehow crippled by this opinion.
I agree Hudson was looking for the get out of jail free card.
What bothers me is Scalia's statements:
"As far as we know, civil liability is an effective deterrent here, as we have assumed it is in other contexts."
and
Massive deterrence is hardly necessary. Contrary to Hudson’s argument that without suppression there will be no deterrence, many forms of police misconduct are deterred by civil-rights suits, and by the consequences of increasing professionalism of police forces, including a new emphasis on internal police discipline.
These statement sound like a man living in a world where if you are suspected of doing something wrong, they call your lawyer and set up an appointment to question you at your convenience.
For those of us in the alternate reality, cops are people.
They make mistakes.
Most are A type personalities.
Some of them are plain mean.
They cover each others backs as a matter of course.
I feel they should be held accountable for violating the law and my rights.
I also feel that won't happen if there's no penalty for not doing so.:eyebrow:
I feel they should be held accountable for violating the law and my rights.
I also feel that won't happen if there's no penalty for not doing so.
There's a big space between "no penalty" and whipping out the exclusionary rule to release felons any time the cops didn't wait "long enough" between announcing and opening an unlocked door to execute a search warrant.
There's gotta be a balancing done between the egregiousness of the police behavior and the harm of excluding the evidence, and that's what this opinion says. Alito didn't say that the other remedies should be the only recourse, he said Hudson's claim that there was
no other recourse than giving Hudson an exclusionary rule walk was bogus, and cited the other recourses as counterexamples. To carp that the other recourses are insufficient to an unjustified warrantless no-knock door-crashing crisis entry with tear gas and flashbangs is to sign up for Hudson's theory that it's either toss all the evidence every time there's a complaint or nothing. Nothing Alito said supports
discarding the exclusionary rule.
Well, in their process, giving the homeowner as little notice as possible is a peformance goal. This works out well unless they have the wrong house.
Or bad intel.
There's a big space between "no penalty" and whipping out the exclusionary rule to release felons any time the cops didn't wait "long enough" between announcing and opening an unlocked door to execute a search warrant.
There's gotta be a balancing done between the egregiousness of the police behavior and the harm of excluding the evidence, and that's what this opinion says. Alito didn't say that the other remedies should be the only recourse, he said Hudson's claim that there was no other recourse than giving Hudson an exclusionary rule walk was bogus, and cited the other recourses as counterexamples. To carp that the other recourses are insufficient to an unjustified warrantless no-knock door-crashing crisis entry with tear gas and flashbangs is to sign up for Hudson's theory that it's either toss all the evidence every time there's a complaint or nothing. Nothing Alito said supports discarding the exclusionary rule.
No, there does not... to protect and serve. It is their job, just like when they illegally gather evidence, that evidence cannot ever be used in court. It is just.
If they do not enter properly the are just invaders, not cops.
If they do not enter properly the are just invaders, not cops.
Just shoot 'em then, that'll work. I wonder why Hudson didn't think of that? Obviously he had a gun... :-)
Seriously, that's not what the law is. Implement the "Farnham's Freehold" strategy at your peril.
Some things are more important than convenience.
Randy Weaver's name at least let some know how corrupt our government has become, that they are now at the level of just assassinating unarmed women and children and pets.
If someone enters my home unannounced, I will shoot them.
If someone enters my home unannounced, I will shoot them.
I hope it's not a firefighter.
The hose is usually a dead giveaway.
I hope it's not a firefighter.
[CENTER]
[/CENTER]
Sam Walker ain't so happy about Scalia citing him in his argument.
Walker says poltical leadership, internal procedures, media oversight and public pressure are all necessary to ensure civil liberties, but that judicial oversight is extremely important too, and that Scalia misused his scholarship to imply that Walker supports a diminishing role for the courts.
I took the quote to imply that Walker believes there have been wide-ranging reforms in the education, training, and supervision of police officers. I guess you're only allowed to quote him if he agrees with you. :-)
The hose is usually a dead giveaway.
The one with the hose isn't usually the first one through the door, it's the one with the axe. In fact, sometimes it's smarter to do an rescue entry from the side that isn't burning yet.
The hose is usually a dead giveaway.
Fire, alarms and smoke may do it too... she's arguing just to do it.
Shoot 'em.
Investigators say Braunstein dressed as a New York firefighter October 31, set two small fires in the hallway outside the woman's apartment, and then told her he was there to investigate.
The woman said he then put a gun to the her head, bound, drugged her and molested her for more than 12 hours.
Shoot 'em.
On Halloween? What if the perp is drunk and naked?. :-)
Of course Braunstein was home free, only the criminals and the cops have guns in NYC.
Unless it's Halloween
Dressed in a tuxedo imitating John Travolta from Saturday Night Fever...
I see no crime.
o/~"Stayin' alive, stayin' alive..."o/~ ....oops.
It was an accident... just like the one that almost happened at my house.
My back room was mostly underground, had a small window that was very high. I had a small bookshelf with some comics and action figures on it in that room.
I was working nights and asleep and heard glass break. Got my gun, walked into the room in time to see a stick opening to latch to the window, pressing myself against the wall feeling VERY lucky not to have been seen I waited... slowly the window was haltingly lifted. They were being very careful not to be heard. Slowly a blond head appeared, I placed the gun to the temple, grabbed a handful of hair and screamed into their ear just after cocking the gun. "MOVE & DIE. BOTH EMPTY HANDS INTO THIS HOUSE NOW! BREATH FUNNY AND DIE, THINK FUNNY AND DIE!" They were on their side and I made them grab the wall in front of them as they started to cry. I realized something. It was a fucking kid. Here this idiot was breaking into someone's house risking their life and I looked over my shoulder and knew... it was for the comics or figures. "Get the fuck out of here"
I ran across the house, caught him and made him take me to his house. Unloaded my gun on the way.
Knocked on the door, explained what happened finished by handing his dad my gun "this was cocked, loaded with hollow-points at your son's temple not five minutes ago... had I been someone else, because I never saw his face, someone more frightened, someone with no training, he would have been dead now. You need to have a talk with your son."
So, I know how easy it would be to make a mistake.... I am not talking about just unloading willy-nilly... there are idiots out there, I know. I had a similar thing happen while hunting... you think this kid was stupid, ha!
However, had I shot him... I would have felt bad, but like a murderer, no, not at all.
If someone enters your residence unannounced, you must assume they are armed and there to harm you. It is the only ethical thing to do.
My family's welfare is more important than the rights of those who would come into my home as a criminal. I do not have the luxury to test the waters of our safety with my life just to give someone the benefit of the doubt because they will not give me that opportunity if they are armed.
If they are in my home unannounced, they are armed and there to harm my family, period.
Taking that chance is unethical, and intentionally taking chances with my families safety. It is wrong for anyone to knowingly do it IMO.
I need to find the article... here in Winter Haven a man was in the back yard of another. He tried to break-into that man's home earlier and could not.
They were arguing, the man in the back yard was unarmed (but the man inside did not know this) at one point in the argument the would-be burglar said "Man, I'm going to kill you", the home owner shot and killed him.
He went home from the police station that night.
This was before the FL Castle Doctrine.
Fire, alarms and smoke may do it too... she's arguing just to do it.
I'm not the one with the puppy pictures...whatever *that* meant.
Depending on how it starts, firefighters are often the ones who alert the occupants of a building that there's a fire.
My point is that as a firearms user you are responsible for identifying your target and what lies beyond it. Shooting cops is simply not usually a good way to enhance your future prospects, no matter how principled a move it felt like at the time. The onus will be on you in court to demonstrate that your actions were reasonable. And if you're opposed to no-knock warrant executions, announcing a policy of shooting unidentified intruders claiming to be cops may not be the best way to discourage them.
Of course, if something --like a short life expectancy-- has diminished your sense of responsibility to the point of "they'll never take me alive", I can't speak to that.
Edit to note that this was posted before I read rkz's post #80, which certainly puts a different light on things.
...at one point in the argument the would-be burglar said "Man, I'm going to kill you", the home owner shot and killed him.
And *that* is a righteous shoot. The shooter had a "reasonable belief that he was in danger of death or grevious bodily harm". If someone proclaims deadly intent, you'd be wise to beleive them and act accordingly.
It was an accident... just like the one that almost happened at my house.
That's a hell of a story...but I don't think I'd hand my gun over to anybody, much less a burglar's father. Glad it worked out OK. Hope the kid never did it again.
And *that* is a righteous shoot. The shooter had a "reasonable belief that he was in danger of death or grevious bodily harm". If someone proclaims deadly intent, you'd be wise to beleive them and act accordingly.
Breaking into your home
is that proclamation.
That's a hell of a story...but I don't think I'd hand my gun over to anybody, much less a burglar's father.
It was empty. The kid was about ten. It was ok, he was not mad at me... you had to be there.
Edit- My biggest fear was that he was going to hospitalize the kid "teaching him a lesson".... he was terrified in a way I have never seen anyone. But being a father, I cannot imagine being in his shoes, not something I would want to experience.
It was empty. The kid was about ten. It was ok, he was not mad at me... you had to be there.
No doubt. And I did pick up that you'd unloaded the gun.
But parents can be very strange when their kids are/have been in danger; you could easily have ended up facing one who would decide it was
your fault his kid was breaking into your place. At which point I wouldn't have wanted to have already disarmed myself
But as you say, you had to be there.
He was not getting it. He was in shock, as a first responder, I saw it right away.... I talked about something else for a second and asked if we could come inside and sit in the A/C.
Then I handed him the gun, something tangible so he could "hold on" to it.
Then he got it. I thought he was going to faint... not being dramatic, I asked if he needed to put his head down.
Took the gun back and then we were able to discuss what happened. He kept going back to an accusation that the window was open and I kept had to correct him until I offered to take him to the window to show him the stick and broken window and ask him to get his son in the room and ask him what happened... he then was ok with the truth. I assume.
I don't know how he handled it with his kid really... was a terrible day for me, but I felt for that family. They were very poor, I remember not having many toys and wanted to give him something, but would not reward such behavior.
I just hope he learned that he almost died and not that he got away with it... could have gone either way.