Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Ok to shoot police in wrong house???

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Battle Creek, ,
    Posts
    559

    Question Ok to shoot police in wrong house???

    real mixed feelings on this one.. rest of story at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/sta...efense-police/

    Finally some rational legislation is passed concerning ‘public servants’ unlawfully entering another person’s property.

    All too often, we see examples of cops breaking into the wrong house and shooting the family dog, or worse, killing a member of the family.

    Well, Indiana has taken action to “recognize the unique character of a citizen’s home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant.”

    This special amendment is no revolutionary new thought, only common sense.

    Self-defense is a natural right; when laws are in place that protect incompetent police by removing one’s ability to protect one’s self, simply because the aggressor has a badge and a uniform, this is a human rights violation. Indiana is leading the way by recognizing this right and creating legislation to protect it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    It's what a legislation is supposed to do. This law should be unnecessary in a constitutional limited government that recognizes ancient rights and principles that a person's home is their castle. It is a good law.

    Joseph Hubbard, 40, president of Jeffersonville Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 100. “Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law.”

    I hope no one dies, but if a cop dies because he is violating ancient held principles and common sense rights....he shouldn't have been a cop in the first place.

    Notice also the subtle hint that it is somehow more wrong that someone might get away with killing a cop, yet their is no outcry about the mundanes who are murdered or killed by invasions of a wrong home. Sickening.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,881
    isn't this really olde news as of june 2012?

    HuffPost has a nice op'ed piece here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley...b_1596846.html

    quote: The Castle Doctrine law says that if someone has entered or is attempting to enter your home without your consent, you're legally permitted to use a reasonable amount of force to expel the intruder from your residence. If you reasonably believe your life or members of your family are in danger, you can use lethal force. The revision to Indiana's law simply states that public servants aren't exempt from such treatment. unquote

    OP shall we keep it in perspective shall we with out the sensational headlines of olde news?

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 02-04-2014 at 11:12 AM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  4. #4
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
    SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2, AS AMENDED BY P.L.189-2006, SECTION 1, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE]: Sec. 2. (a) In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen's home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant. By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against unlawful intrusion, however, the general assembly does not intend to diminish in any way the other robust self defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed. Accordingly, the general assembly also finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime. The purpose of this section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy.
    (b) As used in this section, "public servant" means a person described in IC 35-41-1-17, IC 35-31.5-2-129, or IC 35-31.5-2-185.

    Snipped


    i] A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:
    (1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;
    (2) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or
    (3) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.
    (j) Notwithstanding subsection (i), a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if:
    (1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
    (2) the person provokes action by the public servant with intent to cause bodily injury to the public servant;
    (3) the person has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the public servant the intent to do so and the public servant nevertheless continues
    or threatens to continue unlawful action; or
    (4) the person reasonably believes the public servant is:
    (A) acting lawfully; or
    (B) engaged in the lawful execution of the public servant's official duties.
    (k) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless:
    (1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is:
    (A) acting unlawfully; or
    (B) not engaged in the execution of the public servant's official duties; and
    (2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.

    http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/.../SE0001.1.html

    A Google search for "no knock warrant wrong address" returned about 180,000 results in 0.43 seconds.

    If this type of legislation were to catch on and spread, it would hamper law enforcement in maintaining their hard earned battlegrounds, victories and society-saving accomplishments, like shooting a family pet every 98 minutes.

    http://www.theatlanticcities.com/pol...-minutes/7356/

    When I think of how safe this world has become due to the selfless brave acts of government commandos exterminating Lhasa Apsos, well, I just well up and have a hard time swallowing.
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4

    no mixed feelings here ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheldon View Post
    real mixed feelings on this one.. rest of story at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/sta...efense-police/
    this is an unmitigated good thing. protecting the rights of a citizen to self-defense, in circumstances where they are clearly in the right, and the authorities are clearly in the wrong, shouldn't even be up for debate. yes, the possibility exists that a police officer could be shot while 'just doing his job', but the point is that he needs to do his job properly and the citizen shouldn't be forced to give up inherent rights for the officer's failings or misfortune.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    It's what a legislation is supposed to do. This law should be unnecessary in a constitutional limited government that recognizes ancient rights and principles that a person's home is their castle. It is a good law.

    Joseph Hubbard, 40, president of Jeffersonville Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 100. “Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law.”

    I hope no one dies, but if a cop dies because he is violating ancient held principles and common sense rights....he shouldn't have been a cop in the first place.

    Notice also the subtle hint that it is somehow more wrong that someone might get away with killing a cop, yet their is no outcry about the mundanes who are murdered or killed by invasions of a wrong home. Sickening.
    I also noticed that the article claimed that "cops" had begun to "fear monger" -- but they quoted a union official. he may be a police officer, but he was speaking as Pres. of a union local, and I'd bet that a majority of the guys in his local don't even agree with him ...

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    From : State v. Brocuglio, 264 Conn. 778 - Conn: Supreme Court 2003



    "As a general principle, the exclusionary rule bars the government from introducing at trial evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment to the United States constitution." Id., 189. The rule applies to evidence that is derived from unlawful government conduct, which is commonly referred to as the "fruit of the poisonous tree...." (Internal quotation marks 787*787 omitted.) State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672, 681-82, 610 A.2d 1225 (1992). In State v. Dukes, 209 Conn. 98, 115, 547 A.2d 10 (1988), we concluded that article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution similarly requires the exclusion of unlawfully seized evidence.

    Application of the exclusionary rule, however, is not automatic. "[E]vidence is not to be excluded if the connection between the illegal police conduct and the discovery and seizure of the evidence is so attenuated as to dissipate the taint...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 805, 104 S. Ct. 3380, 82 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1984). "The United States Supreme Court in Wong Sun v. United States, [371 U.S. 471, 487-88, 83 S. Ct. 407, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441 (1963)], provided an explanation of what is meant by the phrase `attenuating the taint' .... The court stated that, in the context of the fourth amendment, not all evidence `is fruit of the poisonous tree simply because it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police. Rather, the more apt question in such a case is whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which [the] instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.'" (Citations omitted.) State v. Luurtsema, supra, 262 Conn. 190.

    The issue of whether a new crime committed in response to an unlawful police entry into one's residence is attenuated sufficiently to break the chain of causation from the unlawful entry is an issue of first impression for this court. Many jurisdictions, however, both federal and state, have considered and adopted a new crime exception to the exclusionary rule. See, e.g., United States v. Sprinkle, 106 F.3d 613, 619-20 (4th Cir. 1997); United States v. Dawdy, 46 F.3d 1427, 1431 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 872, 116 S. Ct. 195, 133 788*788 L. Ed. 2d 130 (1995); United States v. Pryor, 32 F.3d 1192, 1196 (7th Cir. 1994); United States v. Waupekenay, 973 F.2d 1533, 1537 (10th Cir. 1992); United States v. Sheppard, 901 F.2d 1230, 1235 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Mitchell, 812 F.2d 1250, 1254-55 (9th Cir. 1987); United States v. King, 724 F.2d 253, 256 (1st Cir. 1984); United States v. Bailey, 691 F.2d 1009, 1013-14 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 933, 103 S. Ct. 2098, 77 L. Ed. 2d 306 (1983); People v. Pearson, 150 Cal. App. 2d 811, 817, 311 P.2d 142 (1957); Clark v. United States, 755 A.2d 1026, 1030 (D.C. 2000); State v. White, 642 So. 2d 842, 844 (Fla. App. 1994); People v. Villarreal, 152 Ill. 2d 368, 380-81, 604 N.E.2d 923 (1992); Commonwealth v. Saia, 372 Mass. 53, 57-58, 360 N.E.2d 329 (1977); State v. Bale, 267 N.W.2d 730, 732-33 (Minn. 1978); People v. Puglisi, 51 App. Div. 2d 695, 380 N.Y.S.2d 221 (1976); State v. Miller, 282 N.C. 633, 641-42, 194 S.E.2d 353 (1973); State v. Saavedra, 396 N.W.2d 304, 305 (N.D. 1986); State v. Burger, 55 Or. App. 712, 715-18, 639 P.2d 706 (1982); State v. Miskimins, 435 N.W.2d 217, 222 (S.D. 1989); State v. Mierz, 127 Wash. 2d 460, 473-75, 901 P.2d 286 (1995). Several rationales have been advanced for application of the new crime exception: (1) the defendant has a diminished expectation of privacy in the presence of police officers; (2) the defendant's intervening act is so separate and distinct from the illegal entry so as to break the causal chain; and (3) the limited objective of the exclusionary rule is to deter unlawful police conduct — not to provide citizens with a shield so as to afford an unfettered right to threaten or harm police officers in response to the illegality. United States v. Waupekenay, supra, 1538.

    In our view, the policy concerns underlying the third rationale present a persuasive reason for adopting the exception to the exclusionary rule. We agree with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that "the gains from extending the [exclusionary] rule 789*789 to exclude evidence of fresh crimes are small, and the costs high. If the rule were applied rigorously, suspects could shoot the arresting officers without risk of prosecution. An exclusionary rule that does little to reduce the number of unlawful seizures, and much to increase the volume of crime, cannot be justified." United States v. Pryor, supra, 32 F.3d 1196; see also State v. Miller, supra, 282 N.C. 641 ("[a]lthough wrongfully on the premises, officers do not thereby become unprotected legal targets"); State v. Burger, supra, 55 Or. App. 716 ("a person who correctly believed that his home had been unlawfully entered by the police could respond with unlimited force and, under the exclusionary rule, could be effectively immunized from criminal responsibility for any action taken after that entry"); State v. Miskimins, supra, 435 N.W.2d 222 ("[w]hile this court recognizes the sanctity of the home, the right to live in peace therein and to be free from illegal governmental interference, these rights do not extend to turn a home into a free-fire zone against the police on whim"). Indeed, there is a greater risk of escalating violence when citizens are permitted to use, or threaten to use, force to respond to unlawful police conduct.[9] This concern is especially true considering that law enforcement officers typically are equipped with firearms, and that a violent response to an illegal search may well result in a tragic outcome.


    So in CT, I think that the law is unclear if you can shoot cops bashing into your house or not. One can read the entire opinion:
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=en&as_sdt=4,7

    Since the case cites other places other than CT..I figure I'd post it.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 02-04-2014 at 04:14 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,155

    Cutting through the wall o' text

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    From : State v. Brocuglio, 264 Conn. 778 - Conn: Supreme Court 2003
    [ ... ]
    The issue of whether a new crime committed in response to an unlawful police entry into one's residence is attenuated sufficiently to break the chain of causation from the unlawful entry is an issue of first impression for this court.
    [ ... ]
    Several rationales have been advanced for application of the new crime exception: (1) the defendant has a diminished expectation of privacy in the presence of police officers; (2) the defendant's intervening act is so separate and distinct from the illegal entry so as to break the causal chain; and (3) the limited objective of the exclusionary rule is to deter unlawful police conduct — not to provide citizens with a shield so as to afford an unfettered right to threaten or harm police officers in response to the illegality. United States v. Waupekenay, supra, 1538.
    [ ... ]
    If the rule were applied rigorously, suspects could shoot the arresting officers without risk of prosecution.

    An exclusionary rule that does little to reduce the number of unlawful seizures, and much to increase the volume of crime, cannot be justified." United States v. Pryor, supra, 32 F.3d 1196; see also State v. Miller, supra, 282 N.C. 641 ("[a]lthough wrongfully on the premises, officers do not thereby become unprotected legal targets"); State v. Burger, supra, 55 Or. App. 716 ("a person who correctly believed that his home had been unlawfully entered by the police could respond with unlimited force and, under the exclusionary rule, could be effectively immunized from criminal responsibility for any action taken after that entry"); State v. Miskimins, supra, 435 N.W.2d 222 ("[w]hile this court recognizes the sanctity of the home, the right to live in peace therein and to be free from illegal governmental interference, these rights do not extend to turn a home into a free-fire zone against the police on whim").

    Indeed, there is a greater risk of escalating violence when citizens are permitted to use, or threaten to use, force to respond to unlawful police conduct.[9] This concern is especially true considering that law enforcement officers typically are equipped with firearms, and that a violent response to an illegal search may well result in a tragic outcome.[/I]

    Since the case cites other places other than CT..I figure I'd post it.
    Cutting through the wall o' text
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe G. View Post
    I also noticed that the article claimed that "cops" had begun to "fear monger" -- but they quoted a union official. he may be a police officer, but he was speaking as Pres. of a union local, and I'd bet that a majority of the guys in his local don't even agree with him ...
    You want to read about some "squealing" about the issue, read this AND the commentaries.

    http://www.policeone.com/legal/artic...rsial-new-law/
    Last edited by Fuller Malarkey; 02-04-2014 at 07:02 PM.
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuller Malarkey View Post
    You want to read about some "squealing" about the issue, read this AND the commentaries.

    http://www.policeone.com/legal/artic...rsial-new-law/
    Well, prior to the new law, just prior, the IN Supreme Court ruled that you can do nothing .... nothing at all; just take what they give ya and hope for the best.

    The legislature rammed this new law through in like a week. Its a good law that was needed to address courts gone a muck.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Well, prior to the new law, just prior, the IN Supreme Court ruled that you can do nothing .... nothing at all; just take what they give ya and hope for the best.

    The legislature rammed this new law through in like a week. Its a good law that was needed to address courts gone a muck.
    If I lived in Indiana, I'd be concerned about "preemptive killing". Consider the types that sign up for that kind of work. Not too far removed morally or ethically from game poachers. They've figured out the equivalent to shining deer to use on scrote civilians. When this passed, I recall clearly some of the government thug responses on the forums. One I will never forget: "We will win. Even if we have to burn your house down with you and your family in it, we will win." I see a distinct similarity to coyotes. The more there are, the braver they get.
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuller Malarkey View Post
    You want to read about some "squealing" about the issue, read this AND the commentaries.

    http://www.policeone.com/legal/artic...rsial-new-law/
    Well, I certainly want to discuss this issue in more detail with the "smeared1" character of the comments section

  13. #13
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    On Coyotes

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuller Malarkey View Post
    If I lived in Indiana, I'd be concerned about "preemptive killing". Consider the types that sign up for that kind of work. Not too far removed morally or ethically from game poachers. They've figured out the equivalent to shining deer to use on scrote civilians. When this passed, I recall clearly some of the government thug responses on the forums. One I will never forget: "We will win. Even if we have to burn your house down with you and your family in it, we will win." I see a distinct similarity to coyotes. The more there are, the braver they get.
    Funny thing about coyotes.... once one gets an acute case of lead poisoning the rest of the pack wises up.

    ~Whitney
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  14. #14
    Regular Member Chief Ten Beers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Western Kentucky
    Posts
    129
    If anybody, and I don't care who it is, is breaking down my door, when that door flies open, I'll send as much lead as fast as I can in their direction. If they can't knock and identify themselves and wait for me to open the door and break it down instead, then I'll shoot, and shoot to kill.
    If you're not ashamed to own it, don't be ashamed to open carry it.

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Concealed carry, where you HIDE the exercise of your right to carry arms.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Battle Creek, ,
    Posts
    559

    Exclamation

    What would really curtail these Gestapo type of home invasions would be full rights to recovery, + property + personal injury + emotional damages + all court costs and legal fees + the ability to sue the officers as well as any individuals and any department head that signed the order in the first place....

    In short make them fully liable for their screw ups and Nazi tactics.
    Last edited by Sheldon; 02-06-2014 at 10:30 AM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Sheldon View Post
    What would really curtail these Gestapo type of home invasions would be full rights to recovery, + property + personal injury + emotional damages + all court costs and legal fees + the ability to sue the officers as well as any individuals and any department head that signed the order in the first place....

    In short make them fully liable for their screw ups and Nazi tactics.
    Judges too. Whenever the term 'CI' is used I'd be damn sure to get the cops to prove that the CI is reliable and to know who the CI is so that he too may be held to account. If not, then the judge should be canned.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    While on the surface this is good, the chance of someone shooting a cop(s) barging in the wrong house and living is going to be closer to zilch.

    The union head- "this law is going to get cops killed" (paraphrased)... well don't bust down the doors to the wrong house. Hopefully it'll give LEO pause.

    Can anyone imagine if this law was present in MA last year?

  18. #18
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeyb View Post
    While on the surface this is good, the chance of someone shooting a cop(s) barging in the wrong house and living is going to be closer to zilch.

    The union head- "this law is going to get cops killed" (paraphrased)... well don't bust down the doors to the wrong house. Hopefully it'll give LEO pause.

    Can anyone imagine if this law was present in MA last year?
    Actually, I think the Republik of Massachusetts has benevolently allowed their Mundane's an outside chance at surviving an armed, violent invasion of their homes. They slanted things in favor of the invaders though. The scrote citizen must contain and lock their firearms in a manner that would make retrieving one for defensive use the equivalent of retrieving and loading a black powder muzzle loader to use as a defensive tool. The most recent well publicized incidents of Massachusetts home invasions, the marauding invaders were equipped with automatic weapons and tanks. Or was that "patrol rifles" and "rescue vehicles"......
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeyb View Post
    While on the surface this is good, the chance of someone shooting a cop(s) barging in the wrong house and living is going to be closer to zilch.

    The union head- "this law is going to get cops killed" (paraphrased)... well don't bust down the doors to the wrong house. Hopefully it'll give LEO pause.

    Can anyone imagine if this law was present in MA last year?
    Well, they told me on the phone that they were going to affect an illegal entry. Although it was not a "wrong house" scenario ~ they meant me ~ they do not always not provide notice that they intend on ramming your door in.

    In my state , the law is unclear IMO .. but we don't have the death penalty either...so in only one scenario of two (shoot the intruders or just pray) is death a possibility.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 02-06-2014 at 02:51 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Logan 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    690
    How many of you have been in this spot before? Not many, I betcha. I have been. And I promise you, the next time I don't care if all I have is a butter knife, I'm gonna kill the trespasser if it's the last thing I do. It's my home. I will fight to the death to defend it.
    Lifetime member, Gun Owners of America (http://gunowners.org/)
    Lifetime member, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (http://jpfo.org/)
    Member, Fraternal Order of Eagles since 8/02 (http://www.foe.com/)

    Registering gun owners to prevent crime, is like registering Jews to prevent a HOLOCAUST.

    I am not a lawyer in real life, or in play life. So anything I say is for debate and discussion only.

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan 5 View Post
    How many of you have been in this spot before? Not many, I betcha. I have been. And I promise you, the next time I don't care if all I have is a butter knife, I'm gonna kill the trespasser if it's the last thing I do. It's my home. I will fight to the death to defend it.
    You've been invaded by cops in your home?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  22. #22
    Regular Member Logan 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    690
    My home has been invaded by cops, but I was already in custody. They entered without permission and without a warrant and confiscated property that was, 6 months later, returned damaged.

    I have been in my home when it has been invaded by non-LEO, and I failed in not killing the mofo. I should have.
    Lifetime member, Gun Owners of America (http://gunowners.org/)
    Lifetime member, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (http://jpfo.org/)
    Member, Fraternal Order of Eagles since 8/02 (http://www.foe.com/)

    Registering gun owners to prevent crime, is like registering Jews to prevent a HOLOCAUST.

    I am not a lawyer in real life, or in play life. So anything I say is for debate and discussion only.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan 5 View Post
    My home has been invaded by cops, but I was already in custody. They entered without permission and without a warrant and confiscated property that was, 6 months later, returned damaged.

    I have been in my home when it has been invaded by non-LEO, and I failed in not killing the mofo. I should have.
    Sounds like your recourse is a civil action against parties involved.

  24. #24
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan 5 View Post
    My home has been invaded by cops, but I was already in custody. They entered without permission and without a warrant and confiscated property that was, 6 months later, returned damaged.

    I have been in my home when it has been invaded by non-LEO, and I failed in not killing the mofo. I should have.
    Thank you for the clarification. You must be less than human according to some to have that isolated incident......


    Not killing another human being isn't a failure.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •