Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 62

Thread: Colorado police kill homeowner for demanding warrant

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,318

    Colorado police kill homeowner for demanding warrant

    http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/25/wo...iance-have-sav

    The state troopers were investigating a minor accident that resulted, at most, in minimal damage to a neighbor's lawn. They suspected Jason was responsible for this minor accident and may have been driving under the influence of alcohol. But that provided no legal justification for proceeding without a warrant, drawing their guns, and attempting to kick down Jason's front door. It certainly provided no justification for shooting him dead.

    Jason was killed because he did what every American has the right to do. He insisted that police comply with the Fourth Amendment and obtain a warrant before entering a person's home.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    596
    Good Lord!! Where does this crap end!

  3. #3
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    Quote Originally Posted by MR Redenck View Post
    Good Lord!! Where does this crap end!
    When we, the people, get good and sick and tired of this crap and demand that our courts punish to the fullest extent of the law any law enforcement officer who commits crimes while hiding behind the authority that we, the people, granted him.

    In this case, I would like to see the person who fired the shots convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole. His accomplice should be convicted as an accessory with a minimum of life.

    Unless there are facts here which we have not been told. Doesn't sound like it, though.

  4. #4
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,504
    Howdy Folks!
    When cops break the law, then there is no law.
    All you really have is anarchy.
    And citizens end up dead.

    I hope these men are tried for the appropriate crime....
    Murder in the first degree.
    Just because you wear a badge doesn't mean you can just go around killing citizens.
    Carve the case up however one may, the man was shot dead in his own home. By cops. Without any warrant. Since when does demanding a warrant merit a death sentence?

    Why are these jokers even wearing the uniform of state police officers?
    The only uniform they should be wearing is the one they'd get in Canyon City when they find themselves sentenced to the prison there to await their date with the needle!

    Guns don't kill people. Cops kill people. At least those who have absolutely no business being cops to begin with.

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin
    Last edited by M-Taliesin; 05-30-2011 at 04:20 AM.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Don't forget to mention that these officers have been arrested for their criminal activity.

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,610
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Don't forget to mention that these officers have been arrested for their criminal activity.
    Yep -

    "Last fall a grand jury indicted Lawyer on charges of criminally negligent homicide, second-degree assault, illegal discharge of a firearm, first-degree criminal trespassing, prohibited use of a weapon, and criminal mischief. Firko faces two counts of first-degree criminal trespass, two counts of criminal attempt to commit first-degree criminal trespass, and criminal mischief. They have not been tried yet. In addition to Lawyer and Firko, the ACLU, which represents Kemp's parents, is suing Sgt. Chad Dunlap, who also was at the scene, and two training officers who it argues "were responsible for the constitutionally deficient training of Lawyer, Firko, and Dunlap."
    http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/25/wo...iance-have-sav
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  7. #7
    Regular Member EricDailey X-NRA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Wake County, NC
    Posts
    209

    Arrested for...?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Don't forget to mention that these officers have been arrested for their criminal activity.

    May 25 2011

    "Last fall a grand jury indicted (Trooper) Lawyer on charges of criminally negligent homicide, second-degree assault, illegal discharge of a firearm, first-degree criminal trespassing, prohibited use of a weapon, and criminal mischief.

    "(Cpl.) Firko faces two counts of first-degree criminal trespass, two counts of criminal attempt to commit first-degree criminal trespass, and criminal mischief. They have not been tried yet.

    "... is suing Sgt. Chad Dunlap, who also was at the scene, and two training officers who it argues "were responsible for the constitutionally deficient training of Lawyer, Firko, and Dunlap." Mark Silverstein, the ACLU of Colorado's legal director, explains:..."

    http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/25/wo...iance-have-sav




    These seem like very weak charges to me.
    Get a DVR, a Digital Voice Recorder, carry it 24/7. It's cheap, easy and makes a good witness in Court.

    Triangle Open Carry Meetup
    http://www.meetup.com/r/inbound/0/0/...ry/?a=sharetxt
    This is a link for a "gunz r welcome" sign.
    http://www.gunlaws.com/images/unity.gif
    FORUM RULES (14)
    ....This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life.

  8. #8
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    From the article:
    "In concluding "there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers," the Indiana Supreme Court cited the potential for violence when citizens fail to comply with illegal demands by armed government agents."


    Thank God I live in Virginia where this does not apply. We do have the right to resist illegal actions by officers of the law who are clearly acting illegally under the color of law. There is case law to back this up.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    When we, the people, get good and sick and tired of this crap and demand that our courts punish to the fullest extent of the law any law enforcement officer who commits crimes while hiding behind the authority that we, the people, granted him.
    Thata like asking the snake to withhold its venom when it bites you.

  10. #10
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,504
    Quote Originally Posted by EricDailey X-NRA View Post
    May 25 2011

    These seem like very weak charges to me.
    Howdy Eric!
    I could not possibly agree more. When somebody with a badge commits murder (considering this man was shot dead by an LEO) they should be charged with murder.
    He shot an unarmed man dead in his own home while illegally trying to violate his 4th and 14th amendment rights. He killed the man. Shot him square in the chest without any reasonable need to kill him.

    To me, that sounds like murder. Any other citizen in a similar situation would have been charged with murder, why not these yokels?

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    When we, the people, get good and sick and tired of this crap and demand that our courts punish to the fullest extent of the law any law enforcement officer who commits crimes while hiding behind the authority that we, the people, granted him.

    In this case, I would like to see the person who fired the shots convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole. His accomplice should be convicted as an accessory with a minimum of life.

    Unless there are facts here which we have not been told. Doesn't sound like it, though.
    COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Calls for insurrection are not welcome here.


    --Moderator Statement--
    This response definitely crosses the line and violates OCDO rules.


    OK, LISTEN UP !!! I WAS NOT CALLING FOR, IN SIGHTING OR ADVOCATING FOR AN INSURRECTION / REBELLION / OR CIVL WAR........I WAS MERELY SAYING ONE IS MORE THAN LIKELY POTENTIAL AROUND THE CORNER, DUE TO STUFF LIKE WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY POSTED !!! ! I also said the SMART PEOPLE should prepare for such an eventuality ! I think it's funny you get all bent out of shape for something that WAS NOT A COC VIOLATION ! Your going to a lawyer, so I am going to assume you can read. When you change your all important COC you need to POST it every-time it has been altered so no one can be accused of violating it....

    Anyone who is not 100% out ragged at the POLICE STATE this country has become is a clueless, waste of life that should be supporting Obama !



    (15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

    HOW ARE YOU GONNA DEFEAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS IN THE COURTS WHEN THE SUPREME COURT IS ADVOCATING FOR A POLICE STATE & TAKING AWAY OUR RIGHTS ????????????? Answer That 1 LAWYER !
    Last edited by GLOCK21GB; 05-31-2011 at 08:29 PM.
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  12. #12
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Don't forget to mention that these officers have been arrested for their criminal activity.

    IF the article posted was reasonably accurate, no, they were not. There should also be a charge of Manslaughter at a bare minimum. Then add under color of authority and that brings it up to the equivalent of murder without premeditation.
    Last edited by OldCurlyWolf; 05-31-2011 at 07:15 PM.
    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by OldCurlyWolf View Post
    IF the article posted was reasonably accurate, no, they were not [arrested]...
    Reread the article. They were indicted. They may not have been thrown-down-on-the-pavement-and-cuffed-type arrested, but, at the very least, they had to turn themselves in and were booked. They were arrested. I would have thought that the charges would be stiffer, but the grand jury heard the case against the officers and chose the charges.

  14. #14
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    From the article:
    "In concluding "there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers," the Indiana Supreme Court cited the potential for violence when citizens fail to comply with illegal demands by armed government agents."


    Thank God I live in Virginia where this does not apply. We do have the right to resist illegal actions by officers of the law who are clearly acting illegally under the color of law. There is case law to back this up.
    what would you do to stop them? anything you do could give them probable cause. you can't touch them, or point a gun in their direction. if you do you have broken a law. sorry to lazy to cite.


    BTW, this is one instance where the ACLU got it right, IMO
    Last edited by papa bear; 05-31-2011 at 11:10 PM.
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    A clear answer from the Declaration of Independence.
    when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

    Quote Originally Posted by Glock34 View Post
    COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Calls for insurrection are not welcome here.


    --Moderator Statement--
    This response definitely crosses the line and violates OCDO rules.


    OK, LISTEN UP !!! I WAS NOT CALLING FOR, IN SIGHTING OR ADVOCATING FOR AN INSURRECTION / REBELLION / OR CIVL WAR........I WAS MERELY SAYING ONE IS MORE THAN LIKELY POTENTIAL AROUND THE CORNER, DUE TO STUFF LIKE WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY POSTED !!! ! I also said the SMART PEOPLE should prepare for such an eventuality ! I think it's funny you get all bent out of shape for something that WAS NOT A COC VIOLATION ! Your going to a lawyer, so I am going to assume you can read. When you change your all important COC you need to POST it every-time it has been altered so no one can be accused of violating it....

    Anyone who is not 100% out ragged at the POLICE STATE this country has become is a clueless, waste of life that should be supporting Obama !



    (15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

    HOW ARE YOU GONNA DEFEAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS IN THE COURTS WHEN THE SUPREME COURT IS ADVOCATING FOR A POLICE STATE & TAKING AWAY OUR RIGHTS ????????????? Answer That 1 LAWYER !
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,610
    When on the private property of someone else (OCDO) it is best to follow their rules and not insult them. Too that is simple courtesy.

    I've yet to see a Social Lounge thread locked, but I'll bet it could happen.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  17. #17
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735
    OK, LISTEN UP !!! I WAS NOT CALLING FOR, IN SIGHTING OR ADVOCATING FOR AN INSURRECTION / REBELLION / OR CIVL WAR........I WAS MERELY SAYING ONE IS MORE THAN LIKELY POTENTIAL AROUND THE CORNER, DUE TO STUFF LIKE WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY POSTED !!! ! I also said the SMART PEOPLE should prepare for such an eventuality ! I think it's funny you get all bent out of shape for something that WAS NOT A COC VIOLATION !
    I did not get bent out of shape. I simply edited the post to remove a comment I felt did not reflect well on our mission here at OpenCarry.org. Bent out of shape would be a ban and you are not banned.

    Your going to a lawyer, so I am going to assume you can read. When you change your all important COC you need to POST it every-time it has been altered so no one can be accused of violating it....
    I am not sure what you mean by COC. I will assume you mean TOS or Forum Rules? If so, the applicable rules are:

    (2) RIGHT TO EDIT AND DELETE POSTS: We reserve the right to edit or remove posts for any reason, at any time, at our sole discretion.

    and

    (15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

    Anyone who is not 100% out ragged at the POLICE STATE this country has become is a clueless, waste of life that should be supporting Obama !
    Two things ... first, we ARE all outraged by these examples of the 4th Amendment being trashed. But that is not the same as saying that a revolution is imminent. And second, there are plenty of pro-gun, pro-4th Amendment people who did vote for President Obama. We need to reach out to all of those who will work with us to enhance our rights.

    HOW ARE YOU GONNA DEFEAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS IN THE COURTS WHEN THE SUPREME COURT IS ADVOCATING FOR A POLICE STATE & TAKING AWAY OUR RIGHTS ????????????? Answer That 1 LAWYER !
    The Supreme Court has taken the wrong stance on issues before and they will do so again. There is a saying that "Bad facts make bad law" and that is what has happened here. Remember that the Supreme Court has, at times in history, upheld slavery, denial of the right to vote, and many other infringements that would seem unbelievable in today's light. We proceed as did those who lost those cases ... by changing societal pressures and beliefs to insure that new justices are more amenable to civil rights and overturn the bad decisions. It is that simple. It is a long and arduous battle but it has the benefit of being a winnable battle and one that allows us all to live long lives to see the grandchildren we will be passing the benefits on to.

    Now compare that to the options you seem to feel are inevitable that lead only to chaos and tragedy.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Admin, I have always been a little puzzled about OCDOs stance on a civil war. Im not trying to go head to head with you here, but I think that such an insurrection would not be illegal in the eyes of the forefathers, IMO, if we brought them here in a time machine, they would become the leaders and generals in such a war, starting it immediately. They instructed us to conduct one long before things would deteriorate as far as they already have. It would be tragic yes, and obviously illegal, the new american .gov doesnt want to be overthrown, but the forefathers told us to overthrow it. The .gov has created a system that only works for them. Only certain people that fit the mold can be elected, only certain things that those filtered electorates can be presented to us for a vote, and if the people vote for, or want the opportunity to vote for something that is obviously the will of the people, the .gov will override it, ignore it or squash it. Consider the health care plan, the bailout, foreign oil, prohibition, the patriot act, rampant censorship, a standing army of LEO, and many many more.


    ................--Moderator Statement--
    Consider that this is a line of discussion does NOT fit within the parameters of OCDO.


    There should be no confusion about this. OCDO is about promoting/defending OC primarily and RKBA as a secondary consideration. That is the limit - there is no entering certain arenas even if one might feel justified in connecting the dots in that order.
    Last edited by stainless1911; 06-01-2011 at 11:22 AM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Goldsboro, NC
    Posts
    160
    I'm scared to ask but I'm going to. What would happen, if I'm sober blowing 0.00 and police break into my home, and knowing such activity was going to happen, I grab my firearm and defend my home. i.e. neutralize the situation. North Carolina CC class stays that someone actively braking into your home to commit what you believe to be a felony you can defend against with deadly force.

    I don't know what they were gonna do to me when they got in. And was is unlawfull arrest fall under?

    Anyway, I'm sick and tired of citizens getting shot for stuff like this. What happens if all this went down just like it says only instead the homeowner did have a weapon, took cover and two LEOs died?

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The key will be what you reasonably believe. If you reasonably believe that you are defending yourself against dangerous criminals, then you would be right to shoot. However, the truth of this will be established at a jury trial many months afterward, with every detail of the situation scrutinized by an unfriendly police department and prosecutor.

    If you know that the people breaking in are LEOs, it's going to be nigh onto impossible to prove a reasonable belief that justifies a self-defense shooting.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Goldsboro, NC
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The key will be what you reasonably believe. If you reasonably believe that you are defending yourself against dangerous criminals, then you would be right to shoot. However, the truth of this will be established at a jury trial many months afterward, with every detail of the situation scrutinized by an unfriendly police department and prosecutor.

    If you know that the people breaking in are LEOs, it's going to be nigh onto impossible to prove a reasonable belief that justifies a self-defense shooting.
    How do you get the message across to LEOs to stop? So those LEOs might get in trouble. But how often do the LEOs not get in trouble. Places Indiana where they are told "It's ok to break into any home you like." I'm not advocating violence, but there needs to be something in each LEOs mind that says, "This is a bad idea, lets go get a warrant."

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567

    Do the math...

    “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

    “An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

    “When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

    “These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

    “An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

    “Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

    “One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

    “Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

    As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Brion View Post
    How do you get the message across to LEOs to stop? So those LEOs might get in trouble. But how often do the LEOs not get in trouble. Places Indiana where they are told "It's ok to break into any home you like." I'm not advocating violence, but there needs to be something in each LEOs mind that says, "This is a bad idea, lets go get a warrant."
    Once the boot starts hitting the door, it is already too late. You're stuck in a bad-things-happen-to-good-people situation. We need to work to protect the structures that protect our Liberties from rogue state agents. This case needs to be appealed to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS needs to affirm a right to resist all unlawful actions by state agents.

    Remember, though, that any such "defense" will be scrutinized afterward. It could be determined that there was no reasonable belief at the root of the defense, that the resistance was unlawful. So, even with a proper judicial interpretation of the existence of the right, you need to be danged sure that resistance is justified. I recommend resisting only if it is also imminently necessary. If it can be fixed later, that is probably the best (but NOT required) thing to do.

  24. #24
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,610
    Either way with whatever outcome, you are going to lose a lot and life will never be the same. That is the unhappy truth - there is no "in a perfect world."
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  25. #25
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Once the boot starts hitting the door, it is already too late. You're stuck in a bad-things-happen-to-good-people situation. We need to work to protect the structures that protect our Liberties from rogue state agents. This case needs to be appealed to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS needs to affirm a right to resist all unlawful actions by state agents.

    Remember, though, that any such "defense" will be scrutinized afterward. It could be determined that there was no reasonable belief at the root of the defense, that the resistance was unlawful. So, even with a proper judicial interpretation of the existence of the right, you need to be danged sure that resistance is justified. I recommend resisting only if it is also imminently necessary. If it can be fixed later, that is probably the best (but NOT required) thing to do.
    Read "Who Killed the Constitution" By Thomas Woods, and "Tyranny Through Good Intentions" By Roberts and Stratton.

    I have no faith in SCOTUS even cases some of us consider "wins" have been huge compromises. Our country is not ran how it was intended to and they have no respect for the constitution.
    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)

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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