Nothing that I have said should be construed as advocating the use of force against peace officers performing their lawful duties.
Sad, and pathetic. North America is slowly turning into a totalitarian police state.
Has been for a while. Many historians would say it's been happening since FDR. Others say it started with Lincoln. A few say that it started when George Washington sent troops to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.
Heavy sigh.
Country is going to hell. The cops entered illegally. They should stay the **** out of peoples homes. Cop tries this **** on my house he'll be facing the same 12 gague as anyone else.
Have fun going down in a hail of gunfire.
I say this actually agreeing with the principle, but not agreeing it's worth dying for. Worth fighting for, legally, and all that stuff, but not worth dying for.
"Shooting the one cop forcing his way into your home cause he thinks your beating your wife, and then dieing in a hail of gunfire" is 'dying for your rights and freedom'? lol
While I think the "lol" at the end is needlessly disrespectful, there is a point to what froggy has to say.
Country is going to hell. The cops entered illegally. They should stay the **** out of peoples homes. Cop tries this **** on my house he'll be facing the same 12 gague as anyone else.
If it turns out that their presence is illegal - something that can only be determined after the fact and by a neutral party - that's what the courts are for. You can press charges, a lawsuit, or whatever other course of action is appropriate to deal with their illegal act.
It's also a far more productive way to "fight for your freedom" than the blaze-of-glory approach.
As for the cops in the story in question, they were called in to break up a public disturbance consisting of a couple having an (apparently very loud) argument outside their home. The article implies that the couple went into their home after police arrived on scene. The husband told police they were no longer needed. It was at this point that an officer attempted to enter anyway and was assaulted by the husband.
I agree with the dissenting justice, who wrote, "In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances."
Note however, that we don't actually know if there were "exigent circumstances". For example, if the husband had a history of criminal violence (especially if long or recent) I would consider that grounds for the police to enter the premisis under their charge to "serve and protect".
I highly disagree with the majority opinion of the court that, "We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. {...} We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest." That opinion opens the doors for a whole slew of problems.
If you believe the police are illegally entering your home, I agree with the majority judges that your best option is to let them in and press civil charges later. Get their badge numbers, go to the press, make a huge stink. Make them regret it. Just not by going out in a blaze of glory.
Basically, I'm with the dissenting judges on this one. Domestic disturbance? Difficult situation... better to err on the side of caution for a possible abuse situation. Other situations? Well... far more problematic.
At the time they're entering, you have no idea whether or not their presence is illegal. There might be something going on that you don't know about, or they may have a warrant or probable cause that, while in error, is still legal grounds for them to enter. If it turns out that their presence is illegal - something that can only be determined after the fact and by a neutral party - that's what the courts are for. You can press charges, a lawsuit, or whatever other course of action is appropriate to deal with their illegal act. It's also a far more productive way to "fight for your freedom" than the blaze-of-glory approach.
You could take them to the same court that already ruled that you have no right to stop them from entering your home whenever they want, for no reason other than they don't like your political affiliation, color of skin, accent, hair style, fashion sense, or name; or just have a curiosity about what you might have in your fridge. This week the cop might be suspended without pay for a week or two. Six months from now he it might be a week suspension with pay. Another few months down the line, and it's a verbal reprimand. A few years later, you're arrested for daring to question the right of a police officer to do whatever he wants, including entering your home and confiscating anything that strikes his fancy.
Now, I'm not saying the first step should be to violently resist. What I'm saying is that standing silently by while our rights are stomped on is exactly the wrong way to assure our continued freedom. I'm saying that if people don't speak out against the erosion of our rights, eventually the choice will be to either live with the totalitarian government we allowed to take over, or fight, and possibly die, to regain the rights we should have held onto in the first place.
You could take them to the same court that already ruled that you have no right to stop them from entering your home whenever they want, for no reason other than they don't like your political affiliation, color of skin, accent, hair style, fashion sense, or name; or just have a curiosity about what you might have in your fridge. This week the cop might be suspended without pay for a week or two. Six months from now he it might be a week suspension with pay. Another few months down the line, and it's a verbal reprimand. A few years later, you're arrested for daring to question the right of a police officer to do whatever he wants, including entering your home and confiscating anything that strikes his fancy.
Now, I'm not saying the first step should be to violently resist. What I'm saying is that standing silently by while our rights are stomped on is exactly the wrong way to assure our continued freedom. I'm saying that if people don't speak out against the erosion of our rights, eventually the choice will be to either live with the totalitarian government we allowed to take over, or fight, and possibly die, to regain the rights we should have held onto in the first place.
I have no idea whatsoever how you get the supposition that police officers will be allowed to arbitrarily enter citizens' homes and confiscate their property from this decision. That does not logically follow from the decision.
I have no idea whatsoever how you get the supposition that police officers will be allowed to arbitrarily enter citizens' homes and confiscate their property from this decision. That does not logically follow from the decision.
He's stacking on top of the legal precedent created by this case the legal precedents of hypothetical future cases. He is assuming that not only will this ruling stand, he is assuming that it will become the predominant interpretation of the law, and that it will be built upon. It's assuming a lot, I doubt it will happen (especially not in the timeframe outlined).
"Shooting the one cop forcing his way into your home cause he thinks your beating your wife, and then dieing in a hail of gunfire" is 'dying for your rights and freedom'? lol
While I think the "lol" at the end is needlessly disrespectful, there is a point to what froggy has to say.
No, he really doesn't. I bolded the reason why.
Change this to he knows and he has a point.
As for this and its subsequent slippery slope stuff...
> You could take them to the same court that already ruled that you have no right
> to stop them from entering your home whenever they want,
The only thing that the court has done with this ruling is to confirm the basic principle of "two wrongs do not make a right".
Ind. Code Section 35-41-3-2 (b) A person: (1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and (2) does not have a duty to retreat; if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling...
Anyone who forces their way into my home will not like the reception that I will arrange. Again, not advocating harm to peace officers.
I make it a point that, unless I personally call for one, I politely decline entrance to any and all police officers unless they have a search warrant specifying the things for which they are searching.
I can't help but be reminded of some reports I've heard about Southern Cali: Gangbangers would break into a house in the middle of the night, shouting, "Police! Freeze!" That caused enough confusion in the inhabitants to let the gangbangers get everyone on the ground and tied up to be beaten until the family's valuables had been all taken.
Anyone who forces their way into my home will not like the reception that I will arrange. Again, not advocating harm to peace officers.
I make it a point that, unless I personally call for one, I politely decline entrance to any and all police officers unless they have a search warrant specifying the things for which they are searching.
They may well have resolved the diasgreement and their neighbors being the d-bags neighbors are took it a step to far. "verbal argument" call the cops? Stay out of my 1st amendment.
You don't like your neighbors do you? Did it occur to you that the couple having a verbal altercation outside that was loud enough to merit the neighbors calling the cops might have themselves been the d-bags? Your 1st Amendment Rights do not extend far enough to overshadow the rights of others. This is why we have noise ordanances in towns. If someone is blaring music so loudly that you can hear it three houses away, at 3 in the morning, do you just shrug and say, "Hey, that's their First Amendment right."?
hole neighbor would then park in my parent's spot while they were at work, forcing my parents to either shovel their way back into the driveway, or park on the street (infront of said neighbor's door, instead of next to their own back porch like they normally do). The ignorant never lifted a finger all winter long.Guess the government doesn't like the fact there's a piece of paper that tells them there are things they can't do. Only thing is, their opinion is worthless. The 4th Amendment overrides this law. I hope this gets taken to federal court where it gets nuked like a TV dinner.
Apparently, those judges forgot about a little document that is the foundation of our government called The Bill of Rights. If they were ACTUALLY educated on the law, they would remember that the 4th Amendment states that all United States citizens are protected from unwarranted search and seizure. Last time I checked, an "unlawful police search" is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
Yes, they completely forgot about it. Especially in their decision, wherein they did not state, "... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence..."
Do not be so arrogant as to presume the judges are not informed about the law. The law is their job, and likely has been so for more years than you have drawn breath. Disagreement is fine. I disagree with them too. But to say they are ignorant of something they specifically referenced in their decision displays a lack of thoroughness and logical thinking on your part.
Apparently, those judges forgot about a little document that is the foundation of our government called The Bill of Rights. If they were ACTUALLY educated on the law, they would remember that the 4th Amendment states that all United States citizens are protected from unwarranted search and seizure. Last time I checked, an "unlawful police search" is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
Yes, they completely forgot about it. Especially in their decision, wherein they did not state, "... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence..."
Do not be so arrogant as to presume the judges are not informed about the law. The law is their job, and likely has been so for more years than you have drawn breath. Disagreement is fine. I disagree with them too. But to say they are ignorant of something they specifically referenced in their decision displays a lack of thoroughness and logical thinking on your part.
I read the same article you did. I saw the same thing you saw. I saw judges who infringed on the rights of American citizens. Their reference of the 4th Amendment only proves their ignorance of our constitutional rights even more, which makes this situation all the more dangerous. What you call arrogance, I call cynicism.
What you call arrogance, I call cynicism.
I had a lot of other choice words for your statement. Arrogance was the kindest of them.
My house is across from a side street leading deeper into the sub section of the area. There is a new renter in the house where the street connects to mine. Last month he called the cops to have one of my viechles removed because it was parked on the side street, when it was obvious that an out of state RV was taking up the section of sidewalk where I normally park. This is not the only time this d-bag has interfered with my time. Egged cars, syphened gas tanks, flats, one of the cars was keyed the week my uncle was in town, none of which ever ocured prior to this guy & his brood moving in.
His driveway faces mine. I was not blocking his access to his house, or the side entrance for the RV access of that property. D-bag neighbor. The people on either side of me have been there for quite a while and they are fine.
If you have the means to do so, set up lights with motion sensors along that part of your property, along with cameras that also activate with the lights. That way, when said d-bag neighbor comes onto your property to do his dirty deeds, you will have video evidence of his crimes and can have him prosecuted. If you don't have the means, you may have to stay up a few nights with your own video camera, or at least one other witness, so that you can catch him red-handed and watch the cops haul his sorry @$$ to jail.
I don't think they're ignorant at all. I'm pretty sure this ruling falls perfectly in line with the tone set by the Patriot Act. So I think the adjetive for the judges you're looking for is "arrogant", not "ignorant".
I was going to reference the Patriot Act myself, there EE.
What a horrible horrible Act it is.
As for the cop Illegally Entering The Home, it's exactly what it is. He didn't have permission, and didn't have a warrant. If the wife didn't cry out for help, and they both had Walked back into the house there's no reason for entry.
The cop is lucky he didn't get Castle Doctrined right there and then.
If a cop tries to illegally enter your home and you get his name/badge number, warn him he's entering illegally, sue him and the police force, calling all the reporters you can and holding rallies to protest, you will get noticed. Play the "law abiding victim of police oppression" card and you'll potentially accomplish something positive.
Of the two options, I'll take door number two. Two ways to defend your freedom. One has a chance of success and doesn't involve being killed... that's the option for me, thanks. It's not only that I don't want to die, it's that I want to win.
Here's the thing... if you shoot a cop who is trying to illegally enter your home, odds are with you going down in a hail of gunfire. People will not consider you a martyr, they'll consider you a wacko with a gun.
If a cop tries to illegally enter your home and you get his name/badge number, warn him he's entering illegally, sue him and the police force, calling all the reporters you can and holding rallies to protest, you will get noticed. Play the "law abiding victim of police oppression" card and you'll potentially accomplish something positive.
Of the two options, I'll take door number two. Two ways to defend your freedom. One has a chance of success and doesn't involve being killed... that's the option for me, thanks. It's not only that I don't want to die, it's that I want to win.
Unless of course you plug the **** call the cops and explain that you had reason to believe you and your spouse were in danger. You at that point are legally defending yourself and your home. You have no clear idea of what he's really there for. It's pretty much the very basis for the Castle Doctrine if there ever was one. (look it up sometime)
You have no idea what the cops intentions are, or if he's a real cop for that matter. The thing about going for the pacifist "omg I hope he doesn't kill me" route, is that. You're pinning an awful lot of hope that the cop is really a cop who is there to do his job and not simply kill you, your wife or worse.
Also, gun fights don't work like they do on tv. 9/10 times the guy shooting first is going to be the one walking away from it. The cop would be dead, even with more cops later coming on to the scene they aren't going to just storm in and shoot you. You might not even get charged with anything, because again it's an Illegal Forced Entry into your home. Cops can only enter a home if they have Probable Cause or a warrant. Since the wife didn't scream out for help etc there isn't any probable cause.
Your route is already proving to have failed this guy, the court's already ruled in favor of the Goon Squad. I mean the cop.
I don't think they're ignorant at all. I'm pretty sure this ruling falls perfectly in line with the tone set by the Patriot Act. So I think the adjetive for the judges you're looking for is "arrogant", not "ignorant".
Yep. The Patriot Act is one of the worst things to happen to this country since its founding.
The thing with Castle Doctrine is that it's sticky. While you can use deadly force to protect yourself from harm, you need to prove that there was harm coming your way. Blasting a cop without any reason to suspect that he was there to hurt you is a case that I believe would see you bankrupted. They may not be able to charge you (outside of Indiana now, apparently) but that in no way prevents civil charges from being filed. And, if it's your prerogative to dispatch with prejudice any and all who enter your domicile without your permission, when the other cops arrive - and they will - what will you do? Standoff situation? Not good.
At any rate, I think the best advice here is that even though you do not have the requirement to retreat (as you do with CCW), you should. Retreat to a lockable room and call the police. If the cops have no idea why that officer is there and that officer decides to kick at your door, fire away. You still may be ****ed but it'll look a lot better.
If there's anything I learned from CCW classes (where Castle Doctrine was also discussed as my state has it) it's that you'd best hope you never, ever need to use a weapon. You will be forced to defend yourself legally after you do and there is no law that protects you from a civil decision. Basically, CCW and Castle Doctrine allow you to get yourself into a situation that will cost you a ****load of money. Now, to me that's worth it. If I can defend me and mine with the best available tool, getting sued by the family of the 'victim' (and yes, the guy that tried to kill you that you shot will be the 'victim' in this case) is worth it. Sad that it will likely happen, but worth it. At any rate, I strongly, strongly suggest that anyone that takes a shoot first approach read up on what that approach will mean for them and theirs.
The thing with Castle Doctrine is that it's sticky. While you can use deadly force to protect yourself from harm, you need to prove that there was harm coming your way. Blasting a cop without any reason to suspect that he was there to hurt you is a case that I believe would see you bankrupted. They may not be able to charge you (outside of Indiana now, apparently) but that in no way prevents civil charges from being filed. And, if it's your prerogative to dispatch with prejudice any and all who enter your domicile without your permission, when the other cops arrive - and they will - what will you do? Standoff situation? Not good.
It's not over. This will be appealed to the real Supreme Court and stands a very good likelihood of being overturned based on the 4th amendment.
Also, gun fights don't work like they do on tv. 9/10 times the guy shooting first is going to be the one walking away from it.
This assumes there's only two people involved. I've never seen a cop turn up alone, they always work in pairs.
I also wouldn't be surprised if they carried bodyarmor, but that's just an educated guess.
It goes like this, at least in practice: you fire two shots at the center of mass of the target quickly. If the bad guy is NOT wearing armor, and assuming you hit him, game over. If the bad guy IS wearing armor, the impact of the bullet will be like hitting him in the chest with a ball-peen hammer; he will be shocked for a moment, and that will allow you to take the follow-up shot, which will be to the head.
For something like this, you will need a fairly powerful handgun. If you have a revolver, it should be at least .38 special. .357 Magnum is better. If you have a semi-auto pistol, then you should have .40 S&W at the minimum. 10mm (essentially .40 in a longer case with more powder) is better. .45 ACP is even better. Don't worry about using hollow-points. For the purposes of the Mozambique, FMJ works best.
I use HP cuz odds are most guys won't have armor. We were also taught in CCW (the guy teaches advanced stuff, too - which I plan on taking as well) to do the Mozambique. Never heard it called that, but I practiced the hell out of it and plan on doing so whenever I shoot.
You run into a couple of issues when you use FMJ or slugs and one of 'em is a really big deal. First, some believe that if you get a pass through you waste bullet energy cuz it's not all dumped in the body. The nice thing about a pass through, though, is that the target is now bleeding from both sides of their body. The bad thing (and his is the 'really big deal' point) is that your bullet is still moving and still very dangerous. For CCW, HP is advised because you limit the danger to bystanders by hopefully keepin' all your bullets inside the bad guy. In home defense, if you miss with a slug you're gonna trash your walls - and potentially whoever is behind 'em. With a gal, a kid and a dog in the house, penetration is my enemy. For a lot of folks, that's the case. Hell, if you hit with FMJ you could still kill someone on the other side of a wall if you hit 'em. It's possible with HP, too, but you've a better chance to take some of the stink off it due to intentional deformity. That's good, IMO. A friend of my brother's actually carrys a .357 Sig (Glock) and I expressed my concern about the high velocity those suckers punch at. Well, he allayed my concerns because his pal is smart enough to use frangible rounds. And he does cuz - you guessed it - pass throughs are dangerous.
Defeating body armor really is surprisingly easy. High powered rifles don't usually have much trouble with it and neither does the ol' 7.62x39 from closer ranges. While your model 700 or 70 ain't too great for home defense, a short AK or SKS may work ... unless you don't wanna put holes through your entire home. 
In any event, I have a couple of loaded 30 rounders in the safe near the SKS. You know, just in case. 
EDIT: I wanna try to trade this one gun I have that I don't use on a potential back up carry gun or a cayy gun for the gal if she decides to down the road. Thing is, the one I want is only available in .32 ACP. Bleh. I may do it anyway just cuz, I dunno, but .32 does not inspire much confidence in me. I'm a hunter so my credo is you can never use too much gun (so long as you can shoot whatever it is). .32s for people don't fit that mold. So I'll carry a .40 and have a 9mm and .357 for home stuff. But I still want one of those Tomcats for some reason ...
"Shooting the one cop forcing his way into your home cause he thinks your beating your wife, and then dieing in a hail of gunfire" is 'dying for your rights and freedom'? lol
While I think the "lol" at the end is needlessly disrespectful, there is a point to what froggy has to say.
No, he really doesn't. I bolded the reason why.
Change this to he knows and he has a point.
If you truely belive there is a fundamental diffrence between what you think and what you know, then you are delusional. You do not truley know anything, there are things you think are right, and things you think you know are right.
Interesting. Apparently, those judges forgot about a little document that is the foundation of our government called The Bill of Rights. If they were ACTUALLY educated on the law, they would remember that the 4th Amendment states that all United States citizens are protected from unwarranted search and seizure. Last time I checked, an "unlawful police search" is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
Guess the government doesn't like the fact there's a piece of paper that tells them there are things they can't do. Only thing is, their opinion is worthless. The 4th Amendment overrides this law. I hope this gets taken to federal court where it gets nuked like a TV dinner.
Why are you all being so dense? I don't get it. Yes, you have the right to free speech. That does not mean you have the right to shoot someone for trying to stop you. Other things people are legally bared from doing: publishing flase information about you, using your likeness without permission, administering improper medical care. Still, you are not legally allowed to assault them in any of these instances. Much as that fact pains me at times, their right to live trumps your desire for instantaneous vengence. Someone breaking the law does not mean you get to try and stop them with force, unless you have a good reason to belive you or someone else is in immediate danger of physical harm. Otherwise, you yell at them to stop and then seek legal assistance through pre-established channels.
Somewhat scary how many people on this thread are advocating first degree murder of a cop.
Interesting. Apparently, those judges forgot about a little document that is the foundation of our government called The Bill of Rights. If they were ACTUALLY educated on the law, they would remember that the 4th Amendment states that all United States citizens are protected from unwarranted search and seizure. Last time I checked, an "unlawful police search" is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
Guess the government doesn't like the fact there's a piece of paper that tells them there are things they can't do. Only thing is, their opinion is worthless. The 4th Amendment overrides this law. I hope this gets taken to federal court where it gets nuked like a TV dinner.
Why are you all being so dense? I don't get it. Yes, you have the right to free speech. That does not mean you have the right to shoot someone for trying to stop you. Other things people are legally bared from doing: publishing flase information about you, using your likeness without permission, administering improper medical care. Still, you are not legally allowed to assault them in any of these instances. Much as that fact pains me at times, their right to live trumps your desire for instantaneous vengence. Someone breaking the law does not mean you get to try and stop them with force, unless you have a good reason to belive you or someone else is in immediate danger of physical harm. Otherwise, you yell at them to stop and then seek legal assistance through pre-established channels.
Actually, depending on where you are, you can also defend your property with force and in the case of Texas, it was legal for a while to kill a burgler to protect the property of your neighbor. One guy did. He shot a robber in the back and killed him for no other reason than he was breaking into his neighbor's home. He wasn't charged since what he did was legal at the time.
In order to be first-degree, it has to be premeditated. Given that no one has any idea if a cop will ever illegally enter their home, when it might happen, or who the cop may be, it cannot be premeditated, therefore it's not first-degree.
You are correct. Instead of popping off, I should have first harkened back to the law schooling. Furthermore, if the "castle defense" is an acceptable defense, then there would be no murder at all as it would not be an unlawful killing.
Nonetheless, I still find it disturbing that so many advocate killing a cop responding to a domestic disturbance call - albeit the cop probably made a bad decision entering the home's threshold.
Interesting. Apparently, those judges forgot about a little document that is the foundation of our government called The Bill of Rights. If they were ACTUALLY educated on the law, they would remember that the 4th Amendment states that all United States citizens are protected from unwarranted search and seizure. Last time I checked, an "unlawful police search" is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
Guess the government doesn't like the fact there's a piece of paper that tells them there are things they can't do. Only thing is, their opinion is worthless. The 4th Amendment overrides this law. I hope this gets taken to federal court where it gets nuked like a TV dinner.
Why are you all being so dense? I don't get it. Yes, you have the right to free speech. That does not mean you have the right to shoot someone for trying to stop you. Other things people are legally bared from doing: publishing flase information about you, using your likeness without permission, administering improper medical care. Still, you are not legally allowed to assault them in any of these instances. Much as that fact pains me at times, their right to live trumps your desire for instantaneous vengence. Someone breaking the law does not mean you get to try and stop them with force, unless you have a good reason to belive you or someone else is in immediate danger of physical harm. Otherwise, you yell at them to stop and then seek legal assistance through pre-established channels.
Actually, depending on where you are, you can also defend your property with force and in the case of Texas, it was legal for a while to kill a burgler to protect the property of your neighbor. One guy did. He shot a robber in the back and killed him for no other reason than he was breaking into his neighbor's home. He wasn't charged since what he did was legal at the time.
Cool story bro.
I don't think most people here are really talking about the specific case mentioned in the article, so much as a general case of illegal entry. I don't see anyone actually advocating deadly force unless it's clearly warranted.
Oh? Pretty sure I saw a bunch of people saying they would shoot anyone who came into their home uninvited, cop or not. Blasting firemen in the face 'cause they didn't say please before trying to save yer children falls under the above, and is pretty clearly un-warranted.
I don't think most people here are really talking about the specific case mentioned in the article, so much as a general case of illegal entry. I don't see anyone actually advocating deadly force unless it's clearly warranted.
Oh? Pretty sure I saw a bunch of people saying they would shoot anyone who came into their home uninvited, cop or not. Blasting firemen in the face 'cause they didn't say please before trying to save yer children falls under the above, and is pretty clearly un-warranted.
If a fireman is coming to my house, then either I have called him, or my next door neighbor's house is on fire, and they will explain the situation to me.
I was returning from the story one day, when I saw a fire truck outside my house. Apparently, the smoke detector, which is a whole house system, went off (a spider crossed one of the sensors and set it off). Every smoke detector was going off, and my neighbors at the time heard it; they knew that I'm diabetic, and thought that I was in trouble, and thus called the fire department because I had not turned off the alarms. My poor dogs were so freaked out from the noise. No harm was done, no one got shot, but I did take out the idiotic interconnected system and replaced those detectors with stand-alone detectors.
"Shooting the one cop forcing his way into your home cause he thinks your beating your wife, and then dieing in a hail of gunfire" is 'dying for your rights and freedom'? lol
While I think the "lol" at the end is needlessly disrespectful, there is a point to what froggy has to say.
No, he really doesn't. I bolded the reason why.
Change this to he knows and he has a point.
If you truely belive there is a fundamental diffrence between what you think and what you know, then you are delusional. You do not truley know anything, there are things you think are right, and things you think you know are right.
If you don't think there is a fundamental difference between what you think and what you know, you're arrogant and delusional. Seriously, your response is about the dumbest semantical comment I have ever seen. I think this. And I know this.
See that? Now watch this...
I think that you were stoned out of your mind when you responded. I do not know this.
I think that there is life outside of our galaxy. I do not know this.
I think that guy is pointing a gun at me. I know that guy is pointing a gun at me. You better know if you're going to respond with lethal force.
You can think that gravity has no effect on you, but if you test that by jumping off the Empire State Building, you will very quickly come to know that it does have an effect on you.
If you don't think there is a fundamental difference between what you think and what you know, you're arrogant and delusional. Seriously, your response is about the dumbest semantical comment I have ever seen. I think this. And I know this.
Perhapes I misspoke. There is a diffrence, but not one that matters in 90%+ of the times in which it comes up. Things you think to be true are matters in which you still retain an open mind. Things you claim to know are things upon which your mind is closed. That is all.
See that? Now watch this...
I think that you were stoned out of your mind when you responded. I do not know this.
I think that there is life outside of our galaxy. I do not know this.
I think that guy is pointing a gun at me. I know that guy is pointing a gun at me. You better know if you're going to respond with lethal force.
Or mabey it is a gun shaped lighter, mabey his is aiming behind you, mabey it is a mirror, mabey its a woman in drag, mabey your halucinating, mabey...
One can't make the assertion that you can't know anything without knowing it's a fact, thusly invalidating the entire arguement.
How so? You have not proven your argument. I can easily assert a thing to be true to the best of my knowledge without denying the possibility that I may be mistaken. I think I am right in this.
One could argue that people think more about the things they don't know than about the things they do know, particularly those inclined to/working in problem-solving, thus applying the things they know to the things they don't know.
I would agree with that. One could also argue that attempting to get people to think about things they know has a high incidence of inciteing anger.
Perhapes I misspoke. There is a diffrence, but not one that matters in 90%+ of the times in which it comes up. Things you think to be true are matters in which you still retain an open mind. Things you claim to know are things upon which your mind is closed. That is all.
That may be true in most cases. One person (particularly a police officer) forcefully entering another person's home is a very special situation. That's why there are laws about it. That was my only point in specifying the difference. There are things that qualify an officer to enter your home. He best know these things to be true.
That seems to me a pretty stupid spot to draw the line in the sand.
Judge: "Officer Bartley, did you ever stop to consider that perhapes you might be mistaken about what the situation was insdie the home?"
Officer: "Hell no! You calling me some kind of lieing sissy moron? I know what I know, god damnit!"
Judge: "Case dismised!"
Absurd.
Most police officers follow the letter of the law and are good human beings.
Have you met most police officers? If not, what evidence do you have to back up this claim? When was the last time you saw a police officer driving at exactly the speed limit....anywhere?
No, your bias sees my point as irrelevant. Your opinion is not fact. And it would seem that you watch too many cop shows. Your little scenario is hardly the norm. Most police officers follow the letter of the law and are good human beings. The glorified few that make the news because they crossed the line are in the minority.
Neither is yours, nor anyones in all likelyhood. Rather my point. Noone has a complete knowledge of the truth, in my estimation, and as such anyone claiming they do is almost certaintly wrong.
...
Cop shows? This has nothing to do with any particular cop in question nor cops in general. Declaring that you know something denies any possibility that you may be wrong. Any situation in which you come to the conclusion that there is one and only one possibility is a situation that you did not bother to think about to any great degree or one on which you are choosing to remain willfully ignorant. This is an objection to your assertion that only cops who fail to make a satisfactory attempt to throughly consider a situation are the only ones who should have any legal grounds to take action. This is me defending the superiority of thinking compared to knowing, not any condemnation of police officers.
Most police officers follow the letter of the law and are good human beings.
Have you met most police officers? If not, what evidence do you have to back up this claim? When was the last time you saw a police officer driving at exactly the speed limit....anywhere?
Hehe, I had a cop pull me over once and yell at me for 5 minutes because I was going too slow. Because I was in his way. I was going the speed limit, on a 3 lane highway. There where no other cars on that stretch of road at that time (strange as that may seem). Was hillarious. I think he was mostly mad because I slowed down when he started tail-gating me. Hehe.
Most police officers follow the letter of the law and are good human beings.
Have you met most police officers? If not, what evidence do you have to back up this claim? When was the last time you saw a police officer driving at exactly the speed limit....anywhere?
Ummmm. So you equate bad police officers and bad human beings to people that exceed the speed limit? FYI, they adhere to the speed limit laws in the city where I live, and that includes the 2 mile stretch of 25 mph road that is moderately trafficked.
And I don't need "evidence" to back up my "claim." It's defined in the job they do. Most cops are good cops.
Neither is yours, nor anyones in all likelyhood. Rather my point. Noone has a complete knowledge of the truth, in my estimation, and as such anyone claiming they do is almost certaintly wrong.
My "opinions" are based upon the laws regarding probably cause and that prevent illegal entry. So my "opinions" are quite valid and is steeped in fact.
Declaring that you know something denies any possibility that you may be wrong.
Except when you are wrong. Arrogance does not equate to being right.
Most cops are good cops.
It isn't the good ones that people need protections from.
Most cops are good cops.
It isn't the good ones that people need protections from.
I never said otherwise. But the attitude that most cops are bad cops is tiresome and wrong.
... not talking on a cell phone while driving (where applicable - is that law in all 50 states yet?)...
Massachusetts bans texting while driving and bans all cell phone use by teens while driving.
As a side note, I hate it when I text people that I'm leaving to meet up with them, then 10 minutes later, while I'm 2 minutes from them, they start texting me. And two minutes later when I get there and stop the car, I look at the phone to find out they were asking where I was... Really, guys? Yeah, I'm not driving and not on my way, I decided to pull off the highway and go on a
ing nature hike at 10 at night, WTF?!I equate following "the letter of the law" to obeying the speed limit, not littering, not talking on a cell phone while driving (where applicable - is that law in all 50 states yet?), not rolling through stop signs, not spitting on the sidewalk, etc. I see cops breaking these laws every day. Perhaps where you live you have amazingly perfect cops, but I'm willing to bet "most" cops think nothing of driving 3-5 MPH over the limit (if not more) on a regular basis. Particularly when they're off duty.
There is a difference between some traffic violations and unlawful and forceful entry into someone's home. If you consider a police officer that goes 3-5 mph over the speed limit and rolls a stop sign a bad cop, or a bad person, then that probably says more about you than it does the cop.
Neither is yours, nor anyones in all likelyhood. Rather my point. Noone has a complete knowledge of the truth, in my estimation, and as such anyone claiming they do is almost certaintly wrong.
My "opinions" are based upon the laws regarding probably cause and that prevent illegal entry. So my "opinions" are quite valid and is steeped in fact.Declaring that you know something denies any possibility that you may be wrong.
Except when you are wrong. Arrogance does not equate to being right.
Neither does knowing something make it true. If you know the next card in the deck is a jack, and the next card, when fliped, is not a jack, then you did not know. But you Knew. If knowing does not mean that you know, then what does it mean except that you thought you knew? Like I said, things you think, and things you think you know. If not, if you still belive in the ability to know something, then how do you reconcile being wrong, where is the distinction between knowing and thinking that you know something? Is it something that only occurs after the fact, after you have been proven wrong? Where does that leave us, with the lesson that all things you think you know are completly true up untill the point that someone can demonstrate to you beyond any shadow of a doubt that it was wrong, and then it becomes wrong? (Ignoring the cause and effect problem in the philosophy) What is that asside from simple arrogance? "I belive it is so, and so it is so, untill I no longer belive it is so!"
Or, yiou can follow my line of reasoning: Like the crazy man knows the sky is made of basalt and vinegar, noone truely knows anything. They only think they know because they will not or cannot envision other possibilities.
Look, I really think I can see where your coming from. You belive you know things, therefore you know you know things. If my claim was true, well, then you do not have the ability to know things, and thus every single thing you know, well, you are wrong. As I already said, challenge a person on what they know tends to lead to anger. As such challenging a person who belives they can know on the nature of knowing is generally a pointless endeavor.
So lets bring this back on topic: "Thinking that the probability is high that you are beating your wife" should be good enough grounds to attempt to enter a home IF "knowing that you are beating your wife is." As in many cases the diffrence between thinking and knowing are functionally irrelevant to the actuality of the idea that you think and/or believe. In other words, there is no more correlation between a cop thinking you are beating your wife and you beating your wife than there is between a cop knowing you are beating your wife and you beating your wife.
I never said otherwise. But the attitude that most cops are bad cops is tiresome and wrong.
Who said most cops are bad cops? You're the only one I can recall saying "most cops" are anything. Good or bad.
I never said otherwise. But the attitude that most cops are bad cops is tiresome and wrong.
Who said most cops are bad cops? You're the only one I can recall saying "most cops" are anything. Good or bad.
Yes, I did say that most cops are good cops. To refute TA's conjured "stereotypical" scenario.
I equate following "the letter of the law" to obeying the speed limit, not littering, not talking on a cell phone while driving (where applicable - is that law in all 50 states yet?), not rolling through stop signs, not spitting on the sidewalk, etc. I see cops breaking these laws every day. Perhaps where you live you have amazingly perfect cops, but I'm willing to bet "most" cops think nothing of driving 3-5 MPH over the limit (if not more) on a regular basis. Particularly when they're off duty.
There is a difference between some traffic violations and unlawful and forceful entry into someone's home. If you consider a police officer that goes 3-5 mph over the speed limit and rolls a stop sign a bad cop, or a bad person, then that probably says more about you than it does the cop.
I never said, or implied, that they were bad people. You said "most cops follow the letter of the law". Traffic violations are not following the letter of the law.
I equate following "the letter of the law" to obeying the speed limit, not littering, not talking on a cell phone while driving (where applicable - is that law in all 50 states yet?), not rolling through stop signs, not spitting on the sidewalk, etc. I see cops breaking these laws every day. Perhaps where you live you have amazingly perfect cops, but I'm willing to bet "most" cops think nothing of driving 3-5 MPH over the limit (if not more) on a regular basis. Particularly when they're off duty.
There is a difference between some traffic violations and unlawful and forceful entry into someone's home. If you consider a police officer that goes 3-5 mph over the speed limit and rolls a stop sign a bad cop, or a bad person, then that probably says more about you than it does the cop.
No... that says more about you and your apparent joy in playing the 'moving goal-post' game. You said 'letter of the law' I do believe. And that is the letter of the law. If you wish to clarify that you where intending to be more specific than you where, that would make perfect sense, but attack other people for taking your text at face value is unjustified.
I never said, or implied, that they were bad people. You said "most cops follow the letter of the law". Traffic violations are not following the letter of the law.
I think you need to stay within the context of the conversation. Yes, I said that, and it was in regards to this conversation regarding unlawful entry. Dragging in trivial traffic discrepencies as a way to try to prove a point is really poor form.
I never said otherwise. But the attitude that most cops are bad cops is tiresome and wrong.
Who said most cops are bad cops? You're the only one I can recall saying "most cops" are anything. Good or bad.
Yes, I did say that most cops are good cops. To refute TA's conjured "stereotypical" scenario.
Which would make sense had I conjured any such scenario. I did not say or imply any such thing and thus this whole tangent is nothing but people replying to a strawman you apparently pulled out of thin air. Really irrelevant to the discussion as a whole. Probably best to move on.
Judge: "Officer Bartley, did you ever stop to consider that perhapes you might be mistaken about what the situation was insdie the home?"
Officer: "Hell no! You calling me some kind of lieing sissy moron? I know what I know, god damnit!"
Judge: "Case dismised!"
Absurd.
Most police officers follow the letter of the law and are good human beings.
Have you met most police officers? If not, what evidence do you have to back up this claim? When was the last time you saw a police officer driving at exactly the speed limit....anywhere?
Hehe, I had a cop pull me over once and yell at me for 5 minutes because I was going too slow. Because I was in his way. I was going the speed limit, on a 3 lane highway. There where no other cars on that stretch of road at that time (strange as that may seem). Was hillarious. I think he was mostly mad because I slowed down when he started tail-gating me. Hehe.
Going slower than the speed limit and/or the flow of traffic is dangerous and can get you a ticket for dangerous driving. However, in your case he was probably just irritated with you ;)
I equate following "the letter of the law" to obeying the speed limit, not littering, not talking on a cell phone while driving (where applicable - is that law in all 50 states yet?), not rolling through stop signs, not spitting on the sidewalk, etc. I see cops breaking these laws every day. Perhaps where you live you have amazingly perfect cops, but I'm willing to bet "most" cops think nothing of driving 3-5 MPH over the limit (if not more) on a regular basis. Particularly when they're off duty.
Why would cops not enjoy the same 5 mph over the limit grace on speeding that you enjoy?
I never said, or implied, that they were bad people. You said "most cops follow the letter of the law". Traffic violations are not following the letter of the law.
I think you need to stay within the context of the conversation. Yes, I said that, and it was in regards to this conversation regarding unlawful entry. Dragging in trivial traffic discrepencies as a way to try to prove a point is really poor form.
It's poor form to call someone out when they make an unsubstantiated claim? Or it's poor form to call you out for making an unsubstantiated claim?
Why would cops not enjoy the same 5 mph over the limit grace on speeding that you enjoy?
I have no particular problem with it, but it's not following "the letter of the law". That said, I have been stopped for driving a couple miles over the limit twice. In both cases it was less than 5MPH over. I wasn't ticketed either time, but I doubt a cop would have been stopped in the same circumstances.
Your scenario, not mine.Judge: "Officer Bartley, did you ever stop to consider that perhapes you might be mistaken about what the situation was insdie the home?"
Officer: "Hell no! You calling me some kind of lieing sissy moron? I know what I know, god damnit!"
Judge: "Case dismised!"
Absurd.
Which, you will notice, I even went to the trouble of lableing as "Absurd" just in case anyone missed the point. Calling an absurd exchange extrapolated from your position for the purpose of demonstrating the flaw in your position a "Conjured Sterotypical Scenario" is daft.
Most police officers follow the letter of the law and are good human beings.
Have you met most police officers? If not, what evidence do you have to back up this claim? When was the last time you saw a police officer driving at exactly the speed limit....anywhere?
Hehe, I had a cop pull me over once and yell at me for 5 minutes because I was going too slow. Because I was in his way. I was going the speed limit, on a 3 lane highway. There where no other cars on that stretch of road at that time (strange as that may seem). Was hillarious. I think he was mostly mad because I slowed down when he started tail-gating me. Hehe.
Going slower than the speed limit and/or the flow of traffic is dangerous and can get you a ticket for dangerous driving. However, in your case he was probably just irritated with you ;)
Speeding is rampant in this region of florida. Obeying the speed limit without going slower than the flow of traffic is often not possibile. On the roads that have a listed minimum speed, it is usually 15mph below the maximum.
It is also worth noting that, the reason I slowed down when he started tailgating me is that I was probably exceeding the speed limit by ~10 MPH, and then suddenly realized there was a cop on my ass. When he subsequently pulled me over and lectured me about going to slowly down an empty stretch of interstate, I was stunned. Was very hard to keep a straight face.
Which, you will notice, I even went to the trouble of lableing as "Absurd" just in case anyone missed the point. Calling an absurd exchange extrapolated from your position for the purpose of demonstrating the flaw in your position a "Conjured Sterotypical Scenario" is daft.
Maybe you should have clarified what you found to be "absurd." My interpretation was that you found this scenario to be the norm, otherwise you wouldn't use it as an example, and that is what you found absurd.
My initial response to you that most cops are good cops was meant only to reinforce that the scenario you presented was rare, at best.
Whatever. Gotta go code. Enjoy your evening.
Which, you will notice, I even went to the trouble of lableing as "Absurd" just in case anyone missed the point. Calling an absurd exchange extrapolated from your position for the purpose of demonstrating the flaw in your position a "Conjured Sterotypical Scenario" is daft.
Maybe you should have clarified what you found to be "absurd." My interpretation was that you found this scenario to be the norm, otherwise you wouldn't use it as an example, and that is what you found absurd.
My initial response to you that most cops are good cops was meant only to reinforce that the scenario you presented was rare, at best.
Whatever. Gotta go code. Enjoy your evening.
gnight, and happy codeing!
Neither does knowing something make it true. If you know the next card in the deck is a jack, and the next card, when fliped, is not a jack, then you did not know. But you Knew. If knowing does not mean that you know, then what does it mean except that you thought you knew? Like I said, things you think, and things you think you know. If not, if you still belive in the ability to know something, then how do you reconcile being wrong, where is the distinction between knowing and thinking that you know something? Is it something that only occurs after the fact, after you have been proven wrong? Where does that leave us, with the lesson that all things you think you know are completly true up untill the point that someone can demonstrate to you beyond any shadow of a doubt that it was wrong, and then it becomes wrong? (Ignoring the cause and effect problem in the philosophy) What is that asside from simple arrogance? "I belive it is so, and so it is so, untill I no longer belive it is so!"
Or, yiou can follow my line of reasoning: Like the crazy man knows the sky is made of basalt and vinegar, noone truely knows anything. They only think they know because they will not or cannot envision other possibilities.
Sometimes, TA, sometimes... I want to head over to Florida and give you a mighty man hug. Your pedantry is truely awe-inspiring (when it's not aimed at me).
... not talking on a cell phone while driving (where applicable - is that law in all 50 states yet?)...
Massachusetts bans texting while driving and bans all cell phone use by teens while driving.
As a side note, I hate it when I text people that I'm leaving to meet up with them, then 10 minutes later, while I'm 2 minutes from them, they start texting me. And two minutes later when I get there and stop the car, I look at the phone to find out they were asking where I was... Really, guys? Yeah, I'm not driving and not on my way, I decided to pull off the highway and go on a
You made me laugh. And this is why ultimately I do not own a cellphone.
No problems. As for cell phone ownership, I wasn't too keen on the idea until one night in the fall of 2001 I broke down on the highway in the middle of nowhere at 2 A.M.
Then again I travel by train so if you do send me something I can respond. But I won't respond to "where are you?" when my train is scheduled to arrive in twenty minutes. I would've mentioned if I were late, you know.
You should teach your friends to not text you unless it's critical. I carry my phone with me mostly for emergencies and you better not send me #@$%$# unless it's a serious question or an emergency.
Oh, I've complained to them a couple of times about how stupid it is to text me when they know I'm driving. I don't mind if they text me or call me otherwise, else what's the sense in having a phone? (My cell phone is the only phone I have.)
I'm going to get the constitution printed on a spiked metal baseball bat and put it right next to my door.
The true question is how much can we take before we rise up and take our country back. A little here a little there, but what's the breaking point? When all the jobs are gone and there are curfews everywhere. Anyone that's interested needs to go watch "V for Vendetta"
I'm going to get the constitution printed on a spiked metal baseball bat and put it right next to my door.
Why would you want to hit people with a document you've never read?
Yes! The rebellion starts with beating peace officers to death with spiked clubs for trying to check on the well being of possibly battered women! Viva la revalution! Anarchy you bitches!
The actual ruling states that if a cop enters your house for absolutely no reason you do not have a right to stop them.
Yes! The rebellion starts with beating peace officers to death with spiked clubs for trying to check on the well being of possibly battered women! Viva la revalution! Anarchy you bitches!
The actual ruling states that if a cop enters your house for absolutely no reason you do not have a right to stop them.
Yes.
Yes! The rebellion starts with beating peace officers to death with spiked clubs for trying to check on the well being of possibly battered women! Viva la revalution! Anarchy you bitches!
The actual ruling states that if a cop enters your house for absolutely no reason you do not have a right to stop them.
Yes.
This flies in direct opposition to the 4th Amendment. That said, I agree with others here who have said that it's best to fight the fight in court and get $$$, rather than get your head blown apart by resisting the police.
This is no diffrent. Can a cop enter your home without valid legal grounds? No. Does that mean it is legal for you to knowingly assault a police officer because you doubt the legality of his actions? No.
This is no diffrent. Can a cop enter your home without valid legal grounds? No. Does that mean it is legal for you to knowingly assault a police officer because you doubt the legality of his actions? No.
I believe this falls under the old "two wrongs don't make a right" philosophy. Which, of course, is diametrically opposed by the old "eye for an eye" philosophy.
Yeah, the government is slowly chipping away at our rights. Just let one cop come through my door to arrest me without a warrant or 'due process' and we'll see what happens.
I'm going to get the constitution printed on a spiked metal baseball bat and put it right next to my door.
The true question is how much can we take before we rise up and take our country back. A little here a little there, but what's the breaking point? When all the jobs are gone and there are curfews everywhere. Anyone that's interested needs to go watch "V for Vendetta"
V for Vendetta...one of my favorite movies.
Escape from Terra is one of my favorite online comics, even though it gets a bit racy.