Reading this thread, one would think it's a war zone out there.

Is it really that common for police to invade the wrong house with a no-knock warrant, and the occupant to be armed and gun them down?

This sounds like something that only happens in the very worst neighborhoods, and then even rarely.

crab66: I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand it protects innocent people from several of the incidents and scenarios mentioned. On the other I have family members in law enforcement. And often times they have legitimate and legal reasons to enter a property without the owner or residents consent.

It's really a no win situation.

I think the key point is the "Illegally" bit.
If the officers in question are wild bucks willing to ignore the rules, the state won't back them up. Because the state is all about rules and procedures and shiat like that. If you screw that up then you're on your own.

Will it actually play out like a hunting license against cops? I doubt it.
Law abiding people wont fire on a cop unless its a case of mistaken identity (someone unannounced in your home at 3am). Most crooks that want to shoot will shoot, They won't care for the law either way.

I think the real intention is to give the officers something to think about before they go banging down random doors.
It wont make the job more dangerous for cops, but it will clearly let them know that paperwork matters.

This is the same bullet design as the 'infamous' Black Talon, and I can very much legally walk into any number of gun stores (or jump on Gunbroker) and buy it by the case.

low_dazzle:

low_expectations

cenobyte40k: Honestly the police have brought this on themselves. No Knock warrant are obviously unethical but they use them all the time anyway The police tactics have become more and more violent and deadly (mostly do to their war on drugs). This wouldn't be a real problem if only hardened criminals where subject to this treatment, but innocent citizens get caught in the 'crossfire'. Citizens watch as police break the law they would be arrest or tickets for with wanton abandon (Traffic laws are a great example), and then are treated by the same laws as if they are 2nd class citizens compared to the police. The police departments of this country have allowed themselves to be co-oped for use as mortality enforcement (War on drugs) which was always going to put them in an unnecessarily adversarial roll, and then have failed at basic PR and citizens relations. Put those four things together 1)Special treatment under the law 2)Oppressive morality enforcement 3)Violent, unethical tactics that a grievous effect on innocent people and 4)Lack of any meaningful citizen relations programs, are causing this backlash.

Keep in mind they don't pull no-knock warrants out of entertainment value. They don't want evidence destroyed, but more importantly they don't want a standoff where the person pulls a weapon on them, or threatens to kill themselves, or locks themselves away or does something crazy. It IS plausible to say that fewer people get killed this way. Most of the time, if an occupant pulled a gun, it's kind of unlikely that an officer would be killed (body armor and wild aim), but almost certain the occupant will be killed.

And the occupant can fark with them too- say they've got the wrong house, the wrong person, start calling the news, say they don't speak English- basically it may be pointless to knock and "discuss" it.

I do think no-knocks are overused. But this law doesn't do anything to limit the legal requirements for issuing one. It makes it a lot more likely to be used, actually, because it's creating a legal defense if you DO shoot at the cops, thus making it extra important to use enough force to make sure that you won't get shot at, well, use that force more often.

Silly Jesus: Here's the only problem with this. How does the person in the home determine whether or not the police action is legal before they decide to start shooting at them?

Rightly or wrongly, there are going to be some dead folks as a result of this law. And, whether they are in the right or not, most of those dead folks probably won't be the police.

"Hey, look, it's SWAT with a no-knock search warrant." "My GED in law tells me that their no-knock entry is illegal, so I'll start shooting at them." "Oops, they have a lot more armor, weapons, and training...now I'm dead..."

Yeah, hopefully most of the dead are cops.

TenJed_77: Ken VeryBigLiar: s on the top of that armored vehicle, right? They're designed to go into active shooter events and get information, perform rescue, and deliver operators without getting them shot too.

Yeah, like the time last summer in my GF's PD when they have to go after a guy who holed himself up with around

But Ken, your a very big liar.

You sign up for Fark after getting drunk on Rusty Nails and watching Monty Python and ya pay for it for the rest of your days...

Because People in power are Stupid: [newsimg.bbc.co.uk image 203x290]

Now they need to legalize black talon apr.

They have:


Though I must admit I am unsure of exactly what you think it will do against body armor.
If you want to do something beside make the guy in the picture laugh, try this:

or maybe this:



[

OK, folks. It's legal.
Admit it.

go ahead and defend yourselfs.
Better to be judges by 12 than carried by 6.

Yadda yadda.

Just don't be jerks about it, M'k?

If you have to shoot one of these pig scumfarkers, just pop them good. Double tap, to be sure.

But don't be a jerk about it. Don't go driving around the neighborhood with him strapped to the hood of your family station wagon.
Show a litte class.

So what happens when they raid the wrong address and it happens to be a cops house and the owner shoots and kills another cop?

divide by zero?

A law that will make cops take 5 seconds to make sure they have the right address before they just kick in the first door they see, shoot your dog (which is a yorkie in a crate) and handcuff you for 3 hours before saying "Oops, my bad. I guess you don't have a joint here after all. You should see about getting that door fixed."?

I am all for it.
But like some previous poster said, this will probably get some people killed when the cops kick in your door on a legal warrent, and the homeowner is all "There is no durn way no cop gonna have a warrent on me" despite that he owes outstanding child support, beat his extranged wife, and has an illegal still out back. And decides to "excersise his rights". But at least the people getting killed be the dumb motherfarkers.

What gets me is that the current System seems designed to get innocent people killed.

If a criminal hears the front door being smashed in, they know it's the police. They know that the police have superior firepower, so (if they are smart) they give up, and are taken into custody.

If an innocent person hears the front door being smashed in, they can only assume it's criminals. After all, it can't be the cops, because they aren't a criminal. Thus, the innocent person grabs his gun (or other weapon) to defend himself against the criminals busting in his door... and is shot to death by the cops.

Thus, the criminals get arrested, and the innocent, law-abiding citizens get killed.

TL;DR: criminals know it's the cops breaking down their door, and give up. Innocent people think it's criminals breaking down their door, try to defend themselves, and get shot by the cops.

MythDragon: But like some previous poster said, this will probably get some people killed when the cops kick in your door on a legal warrent, and the homeowner is all "There is no durn way no cop gonna have a warrent on me" despite that he owes outstanding child support, beat his extranged wife, and has an illegal still out back. And decides to "excersise his rights". But at least the people getting killed be the dumb motherfarkers.

In fairness, that sort of person is likely to be an armed resistor anyway- law or no law.

since the site appears to be farked:

Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Law Enforcement Officers

Police officers in Indiana are upset over a new law allowing residents to use deadly force against public servants, including law enforcement officers, who unlawfully enter their homes. It was signed by Republican Governor Mitch Daniels in March.

The first of its kind in the United States, the law was adopted after the state Supreme Court went too far in one of its rulings last year, according to supporters. The case in question involved a man who assaulted an officer during a domestic violence call. The court ruled that there was "no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers."

The National Rifle Association lobbied for the new law, arguing that the court decision had legalized police to commit unjustified entries.

Tim Downs, president of the Indiana State Fraternal Order of Police, which opposed the legislation, said the law could open the way for people who are under the influence or emotionally distressed to attack officers in their homes.

"It's just a recipe for disaster," Downs told Bloomberg. "It just puts a bounty on our heads."

BronyMedic: Guntram Shatterhand: Maybe we should stop funding police militarization. Seriously, what point is there to invading a home at night? Most cops will go on about how dangerous this threat to our freedoms really is, but how is that worse than power-hungry assholes playing soldier on our dime?

Please tell me how the police have access to Military equipment you can't purchase as a civilian, again?

And, please don't say because they carry M-4s or MP-5s on patrol. Because I can go down the street to the gunshop and buy one with a tax stamp.

See yesterdays article about the DoD wanting to know where all the military surplus equipment they gifted the police has gotten to.

Oh, you mean the farking pigs might have to double check their sources before busting down doors because an innocent homeowner is now fuller in their rights to put the pig in the ground where they deserve? Let me have a little cry for the poor piggies.

BronyMedic: By the way, the reason they have those is to make rescue and entry on active shooter events without exposing their people to gunfire. They don't mount guns themselves

I thought the reason they had them was to break down walls at cock fighting rings where there was no threat to officers.

DORMAMU: coastal agencies have been known to use them to disable smuggler boats at range in the past (i think). I do believe the coast guard does most of that now.

a browning would most likely rip the boat apart, and it would be tough to hit the engine, they aren't that accurate.

The coast guard uses .50 cal sniper rifles.

Bunnyhat: I have problems with people shooting an unharmed person

I know it's an error, but it still made me smile.

Here in Fort Wayne, Indiana there has been at least one case of home invasion were the perps. Yell "Police" and bust in the door.

"If you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to be afraid of."

Karac: And even if you could, I'm sure the FAA would like to have a word with you about your unmanned aircraft.

something something public use

low_dazzle: So Stand Your Ground is cool and all when it's the Cops, but not if it's a drugged-out minority youth coming to get you.



He had Skittles, you heartless bastard!! Didn't you see his pics when he was 12 years old? That makes him completely innocent of all future crimes! What's wrong with you?

dittybopper: For instance, if a cop pulls a woman over on a deserted road, and attempts to rape her, don't you think she has a right to defend herself?

She has a right to pull over where she likes- which would include "not in a deserted area". She can do this without being charged for it.

Not really arguing for or against your point, it's just that I was thinking about this very law as I read your post, and before I read this bit of it.

More that I was pointing out that there is in fact a precedent for "laws enacted to protect citizens from police (and by proxy, those posing as police)" and that this law sounds a lot like that sort of thing.

Ken VeryBigLiar: Without context- Indiana has taken the crazy lead from Wisconsin and Michigan


There's always the state to the east of Indiana that put a stop to most of the shenanigans last November.

fredklein: What gets me is that the current System seems designed to get innocent people killed.

It takes an undue amount of presumption on the criminals part. A door being forced open in the middle of the night could very well be a gang banger looking for revenge.
The no-knock warrant was always dangerous. An illegal entry even more so when officers visit some random house on a whim without proper preparation or knowledge of who might be inside.

In any event, I contend that this law wasn't written to protect citizens so much as to send a message to law enforcement. Do your job properly or the state won't cover for you.

Bit'O'Gristle: i could side with someone shooting a cop breaking down the door in the middle of the night..and not yelling "police" at the top of their lungs as they come in...but just opening fire at the police when you KNOW its them, i have issue with this.

You would know it's really the police because criminals are unable to shout the word "police" and are always truthful?

Silly Jesus: StrangeQ: Oh, you mean the farking pigs might have to double check their sources before busting down doors because an innocent homeowner is now fuller in their rights to put the pig in the ground where they deserve? Let me have a little cry for the poor piggies.

Speeding, pot, or red light violation?

How about having them break into my friend's home back in high school with assault rifles drawn and holding him and my other friends at gunpoint because another "friend" there had ran away from his house and his parents thought he might have a paintball gun. That sound like a reasonable response to you?

Pigs are armed thugs that think they can do whatever the fark they want because they have a gun and a badge. It's about damn time the people took some of that power back.

dittybopper: SkunkWerks: dittybopper: For instance, if a cop pulls a woman over on a deserted road, and attempts to rape her, don't you think she has a right to defend herself?

She has a right to pull over where she likes- which would include "not in a deserted area". She can do this without being charged for it.

No she can't. If she pulls into a lit parking lot a half mile down the road, no harm no foul, and no one is going to write a ticket for that. What if the nearest reasonably lit public place is 10 or 20 miles down the road? They'll charge her with failure to pull over at the very least.

But that's just a side issue: There are times and circumstances, rare though they may well be, where it is appropriate to shoot a police officer. This just makes it legal to do so in those rare circumstances, and it prevents someone who was acting reasonably and appropriately to unjustified and illegal force (say, rape) from being charged with killing a police officer.

Consider the flip side of it: If it was *NEVER* legal to shoot a police officer under any circumstances, that leads to a "protected class" of uber-citizens who have more rights and protections than the people they are tasked with protecting. That's just damned unAmerican, if you ask me.

There is a difference in rights and privileges most definitely in the legal system. Rights = property, if you dont own property then you own no rights. And since all of your property you hold is only equitable title not allodial title. You may ask yourself then well if I dont own my property then who does? Well that friends would be the state, afterall you 'registered' your house, car, and even your marriage with the state which grants you privilege/permission. So when you shoot an officer in/on 'their property' they have every "Right" to prosecute since technically you were the one trespassing. I dont make the rules I just call them out. Funny how all states, as well as their police and yes even beloved churches are registered as for profit business as well. Then you ask yourself who does stand to benefit for issuing more tickets, jail time etc?

http://creditreports.dnb.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/IballValidatio n Cmd?storeId=11154&catalogId=71154&searchType=BSF&busName=State+of+Nort h+Carolina&state=US&country=US&cm_mmc=dnb-_-home-_-retail-_-lookup_-to pbar#goTop

/Ah, How deep this hole goes.....
/Land patents, alloidal title, Automobile MCO FTW!!!

AndreMA: Bit'O'Gristle: i could side with someone shooting a cop breaking down the door in the middle of the night..and not yelling "police" at the top of their lungs as they come in...but just opening fire at the police when you KNOW its them, i have issue with this.

You would know it's really the police because criminals are unable to shout the word "police" and are always truthful?

And it doesn't farking matter, anyway. Police or not, if someone comes kicking down my door in the middle of the night when I have done nothing wrong they deserve every bullet that they catch. The pigs want to cultivate a mentallity where the general population is cowed into a constant state of fear and submission. Fark that and fark them.

Silly Jesus: the problem is with the person that they are after thinking that the action is not valid, even if it is.

Again, people who are inclined to resist arrest are inclined to do so whether there's a law behind them or not.

Did some time as a Census Enumerator- during the "re-interview" phase, where people who failed to mail back their form basically get cold-called and hand-held if necessary to make sure they complete a form.

There were two types of forms in 2000, one was a four page form that was basically minor details- who lives with you? are they employed? do they own a car? stupid crap. It takes ten, maybe fifteen minutes to complete. If you were the lucky one-in-six you got a sixty page form that I will agree, seemed a skoche invasive, even if it's really just used as statistical data with the names stripped from it.

Anydangway, I had about two holdouts who were habitually dodging me, one of whom took time out of his busy day to tell me that he had a "constitutional right" to privacy, and I was invading it, etc. and so on.

Fun fact: the Census (and by implication, the federal government's right to conduct it) has been part of the constitution more or less since it was written. That bit about "no taxation without representation"? Yeah, you have to know how many people there are in your country to make sure they're being represented.

The vocal, legal-type "expert" I knew I was going to have issues with before I'd even knocked on his door the first time. Guy had a converted school bus parked in front of his house, painted primer grey, with the top back quarter hacked off it with a cutting torch. He was using the body like the back of a pickup truck. Kinda ingenious, really.

Anyway, he held me up on his porch (from behind a locked screen door) with a lecture on how my presence "represented everything that was wrong with this country". By the time he was done, he'd taken up about as much time as it would have taken to complete the damn form, twice-over.

Another fun fact: I am obligated to re-visit this guy about twelve more times before I can say I have duly dispensed my responsibilities as an Enumerator- for this phase. There's a couple more phases of the Census that come after mine at this point, one of which I like to call the "thumb-breaker" phase, from the way it was described to me.

In any case, I was getting paid about 14 bucks an hour and 31 cents a mile for all this re-visitation and lecture listening- money that is, at some point, coming out of Mr. Constitutional Scholar's pocket. And even if that weren't the case, the main thrust of intent behind the census is, in fact, related to taxes/state allocation of federal money. If the head-count is lower this decade than it was last, grants go down. If the head-count is higher (the more likely scenario in this case), those federal aid dollars go up. So this nitwit isn't just shooting himself in the foot, he may as well be doing it with an RPG launcher.

Anyway, would you like to know which form this guy got that was causing him all this undue grief as an upstanding 'Merican?

Yeah. It was the four page form. Oddly enough, as invasive as the 60-page one was, I never had an issue getting that one filled out.

Moral of the story, again: people who are inclined to "go rogue" and resist duly appointed authorities- even when they couldn't be further in the wrong- are always going to do this. They don't need laws to encourage them. In fact, they'll do it anyway in spite of laws enacted specifically to discourage them.

dittybopper: What if the nearest reasonably lit public place is 10 or 20 miles down the road? They'll charge her with failure to pull over at the very least.

I'm betting that- if she gets charged (cause getting charged and getting convicted are two very different things)- it can very easily be thrown out if challenged. All she's got to say is, "Hey, I had no way of knowing if the guy was a cop."

If there's a judge out there who would still uphold the charge, he needs his attitude adjusted, clearly... and preferably with a baseball bat.

So Indiana ... (shades) ... doesn't want me.

/yeaaaaahhhhhhh