Originally posted by Ryanp5555
You aren't defending your home when someone has a valid search warrant and is judicially authorized to enter your house and look.
If that warrant is served via a violent ambush, you bet I AM! In the end, though, nit-picking the niceties of legal definitions and grand flowery
words isn't going to make a shred of difference to those involved, myself included. The only thing that will matter at that point is the reality right
there on the ground, and yes, I'm perfectly willing to go there.
and firing upon people who you have no reason to believe are any OTHER than the police
I have EVERY reason to believe that ANYONE kicking my door in is up to no good and has violent intent, demonstrated by their violent activity. A badge
is irrelevant. Violent entry WILL be met with deadly force. Period.
This is not a reasonable belief. The officer has been authorized by a judicial officer to execute a warrant. In some circumstances knocking and
announcing would be far more deadly or violent than busting down a door. And if you decide, if you are ever unfortunate enough to be in said
circumstance, that you have the "right" to fire upon the officers at this point, you will be, and I say justifiably, killed. They have the right to
operate within the law, just as you do. By engaging in an activity that puts you outside the law, that puts you at a place where a search warrant can
be executed, you have given up your rights to not have someone kick down your door. You don't get to run around screaming I'm protected by the law --
I have rights when you don't even show a modicum of respect for the law. (I am saying you referring to someone who is engaging in the sort of criminal
activity that would allow an officer to kick in the door).
I reckon you must have never engaged in a firefight of any sort. When warlike things start flying, you don't invite whomever is throwing them at you
in for a nice cup of tea... you throw it right back, and just as heavily as you can manage. Yes, I without a doubt I would be killed in the end, and
that makes not the slightest difference to me. I won't back down and lick their boots over a little thing like dying. There are worse things than
Whether my death is deemed "justifiable" by some minion of the State somewhere will make not even the slightest bit of difference to me at that point.
I'll be dead, and not really giving a damn what anyone thinks then.
You seem to be having a terrible time keeping the difference between "rights" and "laws" straight, You appear to be using the terms interchangeably,
or as if one springs from the other. They do not.
"Rights" are not issued by the state, nor authorized by it, but "laws" are. Rights just are, independent of government, and every person on the planet
has them. Rights can not be "given up" or "taken away", they can only suffer from a failure to exercise the rights you have.
I'll clue you in on a little something here - NO illegal activity has to take place for such a raid to be executed. A suggestion that illegal activity
MAY be taking place appears to be enough these days, and that can be had for a price from any little CI running the streets, or for free from someone
who gets sufficiently mad at one. That's all it takes, and sometimes even less than that. There have been occasions when a simple mistake in address
or transposed number have been quite sufficient.
A better idea is simply not to go around assaulting folks. Some of us are bound to take exception to that sort of affront.
Your half-right. The Fourth Amendment guarantees you the right to be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures UNLESS the officers have probable cause to support a warrant. At that point, you no longer have the right to be secure in your
person, house, papers, and effects. The Fourth Amendment was created to prevent the general warrants that would issue during colonial times. This is
where the British soldiers would enter your house for whatever reason and search for ANYTHING illegal. This is what the Fourth Amendment is designed
to protect against. It is NOT designed to protect against a search warrant. At the issuance of the search warrant you lose those rights. It's
Again, rights CAN NOT be lost, stolen, transferred, given up, or taken away. They can only suffer from failure to exercise them. I missed the word
"unless" in the Fourth, but I distinctly saw the word "reasonable". Initiating war on your own citizens is NOT reasonable. I'm not contending that all
search warrants are invalid, I'm contending that unreasonable service of same IS.
The Second amendment guarantees me the right and means to enforce my other rights.
This is laughable and misguided. The Second Amendment doesn't give you the right and means to enforce your other rights.
I didn't say it GIVES me that right, I said it GUARANTEES that right.
The Second Amendment doesn't give you the right to enforce ANY right.
Of course it does. That would be the entire purpose for bearing arms.
Instead, it gives you the right to bear arms for self defense; and arguably the right to establish a militia. Pulling a gun on a police officer just
because they have a gun is not self defense.
No, it's not. Every officer I see carries a gun, and somehow I've managed so far not to pull a gun on any of them. I can't recall where I said it
would be a good idea to pull a gun on an officer just because he has one, too, but you might refresh my memory and point that place out to me.
Now, if he initiates an attack on me with that gun, that's a different story. be careful there - I DID say "initiates", which heading an unprovoked
ambush would fall under. Defending himself if I were dumb enough to initiate an attack on HIM does NOT fall under that heading. You may not know this,
but that's what a police officers gun is for - defending himself against attack. It is NOT for going out and terrorizing the citizenry, proactively
An officer acting pursuant to a valid court order has the right to restrain you. You do not have the right to fight back at this point. If you do
resist arrest, force can be applied. If you go far enough beyond resisting an officer can kill you.
Yup. That's why I let the rookie take me to the hoosegow (charges were thrown out of court, and the rookie was reprimanded - twice - over it). There
is a WORLD of difference between "restraint" and "assault" Had he assaulted me, it would have turned out much differently.
But lets just say the Second Amendment was established to give you the right to enforce your other rights. The Fourth Amendment, right to be secure in
your house would certainly be one of those rights. But, you LOSE that right once a Search Warrant has been issued. Thus, you can no longer enforce
that right because you've lost the right to be secure in your house! So this argument is inapplicable!
Not necessarily. There is a list of particularities there that must be observed. One of them is that the warrant must be served. UNTIL that warrant is
served upon me, then all other rights are in full force. Therefore, it would be a damn good idea to stand outside and wait, so that the warrant can be
served. Kicking in my door BEFORE that service, or even trying to lay hands on me, is a sure recipe for trouble. The warrant doesn't take effect at
issue by the judge or magistrate, it takes effect upon service.
First off, the man was not meeting violence with violence. Rather the police were meeting violence with violence.
Wrong. Raids are, by definition, violence visited. Just as I can't go into a bar, start a bar fight, then claim self defense for killing my opponent,
they can not legitimately claim they were just defending themselves from that old man when THEY started the violence.
As I've explained, you only have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures in your home if there is no probable cause for the
police to come into your home. If there is, too bad. You do not have the right to go shooting your weapon.
You ALWAYS have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizure. ALWAYS. Re-read the Fourth. probably cause doe not nullify the Fourth
Amendment, it's one of the requirements for issue of a warrant for a REASONABLE search and seizure.
Totalitarianism? It's called living under the 4th Amendment. The definition hasn't changed. This aspect of it is clear on its face. You are secure in
your person or house UNLESS the cops have probable cause supported by a warrant. At that point, you lose that right. You just have a hatred for cops
and you are letting it blind you to the objective truth.
Yup, totalitarianism. The 4th Amendment in NO WAY authorizes unreasonable search and seizure. It actually sets the ground rules. Ignoring that, and
proceeding right along with an unreasonable search pretty much defines Totalitarianism, doesn't it?
Once again, rights are not issued by The State, and therefore cannot be revoked by it. You just have a fear of freedom, and are letting it blind you
to the objective truth.
You lose your right to trial when you force police officers into a situation where they are required to shoot you. Again, he lost his right to be
secure in his house for that moment. Any action by him was unreasonable.
Again, THEY did the forcing by initiating the violence. had they not attempted an unannounced entry, the old man would not have been put in a position
where he was forced to defend himself. I haven't read anywhere that the warrant was already served, so he hadn't "lost any rights" at all.
Okay, knowing that you lose your right to be secure in your property upon a properly executed search warrant how do you justify the right to protect
your property at that point, despite losing it?
It hasn't been "executed" until it has been served. Up to that point, defense is entirely justifiable. AGAIN, no rights are "lost".
Your joke shows your disdain for officers and your extreme slant in discussing this topic.
That was told among officer trainees and trainers, who were all experienced officers. Yup, I have a slant, coming from that background.
Again, you do not have the right to be secure in your property once a valid search warrant is issued.
Again, issue doesn't matter, service does.
Thus, even though you think have the right to open fire, you were never given that right. The framers of the Constitution never even contemplated that
You may be catching on now. No, I was NEVER "given" that right. it came right along with birth. I ALWAYS have the right to defend myself. ALWAYS. NO
rights are ever "given", "issued", or "authorized" by the State or any legal machinations.
Well then I can tell you that the warrants that issued had the entirety of their evidence excluded at trial, including the fruits that the evidence
later produced, or the defense attorneys where you live are beyond pitiful. Either that, or you're making this up.
Your working on theory there. Facts on the ground get a good deal murkier. In at least one of those cases, the accused did 4 years or so in the
federal pen over what I still believe to have been trumped up charges coming from a guy who evidently had a beef with him, and made them up on the
fly. that warrant was one of the murkiest I've ever seen, other than the signed blanks handed out for emergencies. Completely ignored the rules of
particularity. It was worded far too nebulously, and some things were seized during the course of the search that were neither illegal nor specified
on the warrant.
Happens every day, and not just here.
And I was just stating the law regarding CI's and what would be necessary to maintain probable cause to get a warrant based on a CI's tip. As you said
they are notoriously unreliable, thus an officer is going to have to get even MORE evidence to establish probable cause.
The laws are "theory", and practice often "bends" them. Have you heard what other probable cause the Hampton police had beyond the CI's word? I
And you want more probable cause: He OPEN FIRED ON POLICE OFFICERS!!!! He didn't have the right to do that, he lost his right to be secure in
persons and house when the search warrant issued! Which, even under your second amendment enforcement argument means that he lost the right to enforce
his right to be secure in his house!
Nope, not at issue, rather at service, which never happened, since they killed him first. I'm not going to keep going around in circles over that,
Last I checked following a valid search warrant does not make a cop a rouge cop. Instead, it makes them a law abidding Cop.
Search warrant is not valid until served. Shooting a guy a few times THEN pinning it to his chest doesn't really qualify as service, Dirty Harry
Their was no violence issued. Again, the man lost his right to be secure in house by the issuance of a valid warrant. The man then shot at the
officers "enforcing" a right that no longer belonged to him and that he could not regain until AFTER the search pursuant to the search warrant had
Again, the violence began the instant they broke the plain of his curtelage with violent intent. They initiated it by that action. Kicking a door in
is a violent act - and it can get pretty loud and distracting, too!
Sneak attack? Was this man unaware that the Fourth Amendment gives the officers the right to enter one's house when they have a warrant? I highly
He didn't have any warrant, nor had he been properly served one. In light of that, how does the above even begin to take effect? Yup, a sneak
This man opened fire when he did not have the right to open fire, and he lost, and rightfully so.
He had every right to defend himself! He at least died on his feet defending his rights, which it appears that more and more Americans are absolutely
unwilling to do.
There was nothing to indicate that this was a violent confrontation until the man initiated the shooting. The cops were acting pursuant to a warrant,
again, which stripped this man of his rights to be secure from searches in his house.
Can I come over and kick your door in then? You've just said that it wouldn't be a violent act, and I need the practice. Would Saturday be good for
you? Once again (and I seem to be losing a lot of breath saying this) NO court or piece of paper can "strip" you of your rights. NONE.
It's not the same broad brush approach. These are warrants issued for crimes related to dealing drugs. This sort of action does not happen except for
limited circumstances where it is incredibly likely that violence would occur or evidence would be destroyed. All other circumstances the police must
knock and announce. Obviously, we do not want to encourage gun fights in a neighborhood, so allowing officers to bust in the door in a limited number
of situations and act before the other side can become responsive is necessary. It's situations like these that you do not want to tip someone off.
Yeah, I know. Those 69 year old guys are FAST, and they're strong and mean, too! I mean, seriously, what chance does a guy have who only has to pass
Police physicals have against an guy like that? It would have been just too much for 'em to send a couple of plain clothes guys up to serve the
warrant on him, then bring in the search brigade from around the corner! Shoot, he might've killed 'em all with his bare hands if they hadn't dropped
him like a pole axed steer first!
Seriously. A couple of plain clothes guys to serve the warrant with a knock on the door like civilized folk. How many people do you know that go to
answer the door with a locked and loaded weapon when a delivery guy or whatever is there, and they can plainly see that?
I dunno. maybe it's just a lot more fun to kick doors in and shoot up old guys.
It's not about fearing everyone.
Sure it is. How else to explain a bunch of armed young guys kicking a door in and shooting an old guy when there are far better options available that
would have allowed everyone to live? They obviously had an abject fear of that wiley old dangerous coot.
It's about a certain subset of crimes that are extraordinarily dangerous to deal with. They must knock and announce if they suspect you of committing
a burglary (I'm differentiating from a robbery). However, that is not the case for drug situations, where the people can flush drugs down the drain,
and usually are heavily armed.
In that case, it is better that the officers get a jump on the criminals so as to avoid situations where there is a gun fight.
Okay, I'm tired of arguing the same points, so I'll just agree with you. You're right, it's better to just go ahead and shoot the old folks, THEN
rifle through their stuff. if you just go ahead and shoot them first, you don't have to worry about watching them.
Even in the case at hand, this guy was heavily armed and ready to attack the police.
How armed is "heavily armed"? I'm ready to attack anyone who attacks me, too. In an instant. I'm not a drug dealer, either.
And common sense will tell us that he wasn't defending this right that you claim he was. He was clearly engaged in illegal activity. I understand they
found nothing, but it doesn't mean there was nothing.
OK, now that's just plain scary. How do you know that he was "clearly engaging in illegal activity" when no evidence for that was found? Can we just
go around kicking in everyone's doors and shooting them on assumption and accusation, then? Where does "common sense" enter that equation?
Listen,it's been a ball sparring with you on this, but these mega-posts are getting out of hand. If I respond any more, I'm going to try to limit
myself to just one or two points out of a post, since there's a whole lot of running around in circles going on here. Good exercise, but a bear to
read and type.
edit on 2011/7/7 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)