Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Law Enforcement Officers - Page 3

**The Reaper** · 06-15-2012, 16:12

You know, if you want to talk to someone, you could just call and ask them down to the police station. You could surveil the house to prevent an escape. Remember Waco?

If you want to arrest me, just call or send me a letter telling me when to report. I'll be there a few minutes early with my attorney.

If you have a warrant and want to search my home, stop by during daylight hours, and I would appreciate the opportunity to sit down with you and drink a cup of coffee while we wait for my legal counsel to arrive. If you are on a tight schedule, I understand. Just give me a minute to get the family and pets secured and do your thing. Just put it back like it was when you are done looking. Respect is a two way street.

If you show up in uniform with no warrant and ask to search, the answer is going to be "No." I don't have anything to hide, but I believe in the 4th Amendment. You cuff me up and search it anyway, I think I am going to see if I can get you fired, if not incarcerated, and I suspect that my lawyer is going to make out well on the civil suit for violating my rights.

If you show up in the middle of the night and crash my door, a series of unfortunate events are going to follow that will tie at least one of us up for a long time. A home invasion can look exactly like a no-knock service, and I have a contingency plan for repelling boarders. I suspect that you do as well, and would execute on the same circumstances, so think about it.

I assume that the legitimate purpose of a no-knock, nighttime, door kicking visit is to prevent evidence from being destroyed or suspects from escaping. If you turn off the water, cover the exits, and knock, what are you going to miss?

TR

Broadsword2004 · 06-16-2012, 01:36

A SWAT team by accident broke into my former neighbors home back in Philadelphia some years ago. It was a drug bust, but they had the wrong house, the proper one was two doors down. Scared the daylights out of the wife and children inside. If the police knock and say they have a warrant, then so long as they haven't broken down the door within a few seconds, you can also ask them to slip the warrant under the door for you to have a look at. Although from what I understand, now some warrants are electronic which makes this not doable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

You know, if you want to talk to someone, you could just call and ask them down to the police station.

True, but not everyone will do that. Some will interpret such a call as really saying, "We do not have enough evidence to get a warrant for your arrest, so we were wondering if you would come down to the police station and willingly give us more information."

Quote:

I assume that the legitimate purpose of a no-knock, nighttime, door kicking visit is to prevent evidence from being destroyed or suspects from escaping. If you turn off the water, cover the exits, and knock, what are you going to miss?

TR

One other reason I think is to prevent the suspects from running to arm themselves.

Dozer523 · 06-16-2012, 09:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

If you have a warrant and want to search my home, stop by during daylight hours, and I would appreciate the opportunity to sit down with you and drink a cup of coffee while we wait for my legal counsel to arrive. TR

Serve coffee and cookies on the front porch. That's neighborly. Good plan. (really) I'm building a porch.

**The Reaper** · 06-16-2012, 11:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dozer523

Serve coffee and cookies on the front porch. That's neighborly. Good plan. (really) I'm building a porch.

Never hurts to ask nicely.

You have a lot of coffee already this morning?

TR

**Team Sergeant** · 06-16-2012, 18:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

If you show up in the middle of the night and crash my door, a series of unfortunate events are going to follow that will tie at least one of us up for a long time. A home invasion can look exactly like a no-knock service, and I have a contingency plan for repelling boarders. I suspect that you do as well, and would execute on the same circumstances, so think about it.

I assume that the legitimate purpose of a no-knock, nighttime, door kicking visit is to prevent evidence from being destroyed or suspects from escaping. If you turn off the water, cover the exits, and knock, what are you going to miss?

TR

Could not agree more. My plan involves the repelling a minimum of at least four armed individuals. Home invasions are very common here in Arizona and they have been known to dress as police. I would feel bad afterwards if it was a real swat team hitting the wrong house but that's part of the saying, "sometimes you're the bug and sometimes you're the windshield".

DesertRat · 06-16-2012, 19:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete

Excuse me Mr Downs, did I just here you right? Bounty?

How about just follow the law.

You seem to put a bounty on everyone on the other side of the door your SWAT Team just kicked in - regardless of if it's the right door or not.

How about just follow the law.

While most of the focus appears to be on no-knock entry - the gist of the new law is that having a badge is no excuse for breaking the law - however you do it. A person doing nothing wrong and is assaulted has a right to defend themselves. So some off duty LEO wants to puff himself up in a bar and flash his badge and start slapping people around. This law comes down on the side of the victim of the assault.

Truth

SF_BHT · 06-16-2012, 20:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

You know, if you want to talk to someone, you could just call and ask them down to the police station. You could surveil the house to prevent an escape. Remember Waco?

If you want to arrest me, just call or send me a letter telling me when to report. I'll be there a few minutes early with my attorney.

If you have a warrant and want to search my home, stop by during daylight hours, and I would appreciate the opportunity to sit down with you and drink a cup of coffee while we wait for my legal counsel to arrive. If you are on a tight schedule, I understand. Just give me a minute to get the family and pets secured and do your thing. Just put it back like it was when you are done looking. Respect is a two way street.

If you show up in uniform with no warrant and ask to search, the answer is going to be "No." I don't have anything to hide, but I believe in the 4th Amendment. You cuff me up and search it anyway, I think I am going to see if I can get you fired, if not incarcerated, and I suspect that my lawyer is going to make out well on the civil suit for violating my rights.

If you show up in the middle of the night and crash my door, a series of unfortunate events are going to follow that will tie at least one of us up for a long time. A home invasion can look exactly like a no-knock service, and I have a contingency plan for repelling boarders. I suspect that you do as well, and would execute on the same circumstances, so think about it.

I assume that the legitimate purpose of a no-knock, nighttime, door kicking visit is to prevent evidence from being destroyed or suspects from escaping. If you turn off the water, cover the exits, and knock, what are you going to miss?

TR

TR

Here is a sign to hang at each entry door at the house. It might make it clear before they bash the door down.

PSM · 06-17-2012, 00:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by SF_BHT

TR

Here is a sign to hang at each entry door at the house. It might make it clear before they bash the door down.

I've only lived here in SE AZ for about 6 months but, from what I've seen, the LEO's (and everybody else for that matter) are very respectful of the citizens. The only place I've seen a "No Weapons" sign was in the DMV (or whatever they call it here) and it was not at the entrance to the public area, but outside the door to the employee entrance.

Pat

Dozer523 · 06-17-2012, 06:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Never hurts to ask nicely.

You have a lot of coffee already this morning?

TR

That's kinda like a beer question. Depends?
Having admitted nothing I still think you're right.

**Pete** · 06-19-2012, 07:59

Minneapolis cop charged in Andover bar fight; self-defense claimed; victim improves

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/...ce=most_viewed

"....Meanwhile, the officer -- Sgt. David Clifford, 47, of Andover, who was charged Monday with third-degree assault -- claimed he acted in self-defense. ........."

&

"......Video surveillance shows Clifford approaching Vander Lee and punching him, said Cmdr. Paul Sommer, spokesman for the Anoka County sheriff's office.

Sommer said Vander Lee was on a cellphone at the time of the attack. ........"

&

"........He has no disciplinary actions that have been sustained. But Clifford was one of three Minneapolis SWAT team officers named as defendants in a civil rights lawsuit brought by a woman who was severely burned in a botched 2010 raid.

The woman, Rickia Russell, and the city settled the suit for $1 million in November.

The suit alleged Clifford instructed officer Craig Taylor to "deploy a flash-bang grenade immediately upon entry" into an apartment where police suspected crack cocaine was being sold. The grenade went off under Russell's legs, causing third-degree burns. As she screamed in pain, officers ordered her to lie on the floor as they handcuffed her.

Russell spent two weeks in the burn unit of Hennepin County Medical Center.

Police found no evidence of any drugs in the apartment. ..............."

Man does this story touch on a lot of things mentioned in this thread.

Streck-Fu · 06-19-2012, 08:43

Along the similar theme of Police Officers entering homes, the 9th Circuit Court published a decision on conduct during such entries. In this case, it is the DEA rather than local SWAT.

DEA, while raiding wrong home, pulls 11 and 14 year old girls from bed at gunpoint, yelling and swearing at them, and handcuff them.
It takes 2 hours to realize they are at wrong home and leave. Family sues...lower court says DEA can jack up your kids for fun while 9th overturns.
9th does still support breaking into the wrong house as long as the cops claim to think that it is the right house.

My biggest issue with this is...how and why can out troops on a real war zone conduct house raids in a fashion that is less brutal to women and children? How often do our Soldiers scream profanities at pre-teen kids at gun point while cuffing them?
If our troops can do this, how can our LEOs treat our own citizens so much worse?

LINK

Quote:

At 7 a.m. on January 20, 2007, DEA agents battered down the door to Thomas and Rosalie Avina’s mobile home in Seeley, California, in search of suspected drug trafficker Louis Alvarez. Thomas Avina met the agents in his living room and told them they were making a mistake. Shouting “Don’t you fvcking move,” the agents forced Thomas Avina to the floor at gunpoint, and handcuffed him and his wife, who had been lying on a couch in the living room. As the officers made their way to the back of the house, where the Avina’s 11-year-old and 14-year-old daughters were sleeping, Rosalie Avina screamed, “Don’t hurt my babies. Don’t hurt my babies.”

The agents entered the 14-year-old girl’s room first, shouting “Get down on the fvcking ground.” The girl, who was lying on her bed, rolled onto the floor, where the agents handcuffed her. Next they went to the 11-year-old’s room. The girl was sleeping. Agents woke her up by shouting “Get down on the fvcking ground.” The girl’s eyes shot open, but she was, according to her own testimony, “frozen in fear.” So the agents dragged her onto the floor. While one agent handcuffed her, another held a gun to her head.

Moments later the two daughters were carried into the living room and placed next to their parents on the floor while DEA agents ransacked their home. After 30 minutes, the agents removed the children’s handcuffs. After two hours, the agents realized they had the wrong house—the product of a sloppy license plate transcription—and left.

In 2008, the Avinas—mom, dad, and both daughters—filed a federal suit against the DEA for excessive use of force, assault, and battery in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. That court ruled in favor of the DEA, and the Avinas appealed. Last week, the family got justice.

While the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals defended the agents' rough treatment of Thomas and Rosalie, it also declared that yanking the Avina children of their beds and putting guns to their heads did, in fact, constitute the “intentional infliction of emotional distress.”

"A jury could find that the agents pointed their guns at the head of an eleven-year-old girl, 'like they were going to shoot [her],' while she lay on the floor in handcuffs, and that it was excessive for them to do so," reads the Ninth Circuit's decision, which was filed June 12. "Similarly, a jury could find that the agents’ decision to force the two girls to lie face down on the floor with their hands cuffed behind their backs was unreasonable."

More from the decision:

Quote:

Under our case law, an issue of material fact exists as to whether the actions of the agents were excessive in light of the ages of B.S.A. (age eleven) and B.F.A. (age fourteen) and the limited threat they posed. See Tekle, 511 F.3d 839 (holding that officers were not entitled to summary judgment on excessive force claim where officers pointed guns at an eleven-year-old boy’s head during the arrest of the boy’s father); Motley v. Parks, 432 F.3d 1072, 1089 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (holding that officer’s act of pointing a gun at an infant during the search of a gang member’s house was objectively unreasonable); see also McDonald ex rel. McDonald v. Haskins, 966 F.2d 292, 294-95 (7th Cir. 1992) (holding that officer’s act of pointing his gun at a nine-year-old’s head during the search of home was excessive use of force). Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States on B.F.A.’s and B.S.A.’s claims for assault and battery.

In a footnote, the court wrote:

Quote:

Although there is evidence that the agents released the girls from their handcuffs once they realized how young they were, there is also evidence that the agents knew, prior to entering the girls’ bedrooms, that the girls were children. Rosalie testified that, as the agents were heading towards the girls’ rooms, she screamed at the agents several times, “Don’t hurt my babies.” Moreover, one of the agents testified at his deposition that, when he first saw one of the girls (presumably the older of the two girls), she appeared to be “12 [or] 13 years old.”

The ruling concludes:

Quote:

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Avinas, a rational trier of fact could find that agents engaged in “extreme or outrageous” conduct when the agents: (1) pointed their guns at the head of eleven-year-old B.S.A. “like they were going to shoot [her]” while B.S.A. was lying on the floor in handcuffs; (2) forced eleven-year-old B.S.A. and fourteen-year-old B.F.A. to lie face down on the floor with their hands cuffed behind their backs; (3) left B.S.A. and B.F.A. in handcuffs for half an hour; and (4) yelled at eleven-year-old B.S.A. and fourteen-year-old B.F.A. to “[g]et down on the f[uck]ing ground.” See Tekle, 511 F.3d at 856 (holding that officers were not entitled to summary judgment on claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress where officers pointed guns at eleven-year old’s head during the arrest of the eleven-year-old’s father); see also id. at 859 (Fisher, J., concurring). Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States on B.F.A.’s and B.S.A.’s claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

As a side note: While this raid was conducted under President George W. Bush, the deputy administrator of the DEA at that time was Michele Leonhart. She is now the administrator of the DEA, thanks to an appointment by President Barack Obama. Furthermore, the Obama Administration could have declined to defend the DEA in this case. Instead, Obama's Justice Department has decided to make the case that federal agents should be allowed to hold guns to the heads of children.

Full court decision: here

Treatment of the adults was Kosher but they were excessive toward the kids. No consideration for how they entered the wrong house becasue they wrote down a tag number incorrectly. Apparently, raiding the wrong house is still ok as long as the officers think it is the right house.

And it begs the question, what is a legal or illegal entry ?

SMP9168 · 06-19-2012, 22:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

My biggest issue with this is...how and why can out troops on a real war zone conduct house raids in a fashion that is less brutal to women and children? How often do our Soldiers scream profanities at pre-teen kids at gun point while cuffing them?
If our troops can do this, how can our LEOs treat our own citizens so much worse?

Some US soldiers have done terrible things overseas, and some LEO's have done terrible things here. It's about professionalism. That DEA team obviously didn't act professionally. I wouldn't lump all groups in together. Our team prides itself in our ability to escalate and deescalate appropriately. We are the masters of de-escalation. Some teams unfortunately dont behave in this manner because they have that "chip"..."I'm a big bad SWAT guy, look, I have the tshirt to prove it.

I look at this decision differently, not so much on the no knock issue. I look at it more from a patrol officers standpoint, and similar to what this case addresses. A police officer responding to a domestic violence call, in most circumstances, has a right to enter the home without a warrant, under the exigent circumstances exception, in order to ensure the safety of the occupants of the home. The problem I see is that many people don't understand this. Some people are uneducated or ignorant to the laws. I can't even count how many times I've been told by a suspect, "you can't do that, you're violating my rights." Now you are giving these people the right to kill police officers because they THINK their rights are being violated.

TR makes a very valid point about alternatives to search warrants, such as a surveillance until the "bad guy" leaves, then pulling him over with a police car. Much safer for all involved. Conducting a search warrant when you know a police officer or a highly trained soldier lives there is not a bright idea. We would use alternative methods for that scenario. I would also be arming myself and shooting people who come bursting through my door in the middle of the night. I agree with other comments that it comes with the territory. However, allowing someone to knowingly and legally shoot a police officer, that blows me away. I don't think we've seen the last of this case.

BTW, in AZ and other states, it is unlawful to resist a law enforcement officer whether or not you believe the arrest to be lawful. The reason is to prevent harm to both sides involved.

SMP9168 · 06-19-2012, 22:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I assume that the legitimate purpose of a no-knock, nighttime, door kicking visit is to prevent evidence from being destroyed or suspects from escaping. If you turn off the water, cover the exits, and knock, what are you going to miss?

TR

The reason for a no-knock, nighttime warrant is based off of violence potential of the suspect. That is what a judge needs evidence of in order to issue such a warrant. The theory is that the suspect will likely be asleep, and slower to react to their doors and windows being crashed in. This limits the ability to arm themselves and shoot the officers...that's the theory anyway. A judge could also issue a nighttime warrant if there is reason to believe the evidence could be leaving before daytime hours. For instance, at 11 pm investigators get information that there is a large amount of drugs in the house, and a truck will be arriving at 2am to pick up the drugs and drive them to another state.

Evidence can be flushed, burned, shredded, defaced, or deleted.

I wish all drug dealers, murderers, rapists etc were as nice as you TR!

SMP9168 · 06-20-2012, 01:36

A search of the NRA's website, and of the actual bill from the State of Indiana finds that the bill has been hugely misrepresented on blogs and "news" sites. Nowhere in the bill does it authorize deadly force against law enforcement officers. In fact, top law enforcement officials and organizations in Indiana praised the bill.
The following is an excerpt from the bill.

SENATE BILL No. 1

****A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning criminal law and procedure.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SOURCE: IC 35-41-3-2.5; (12)SB0001.1.1. --> ****SECTION 1. IC*35-41-3-2.5 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2012]: Sec. 2.5. (a) The purpose of this section is to protect citizens from unlawful entry into their homes by law enforcement officers or persons pretending to be law enforcement officers. Both citizens and law enforcement officers benefit from clear guidance about the parameters of lawful home entry, which will reduce the potential for violence and respect the privacy and property of citizens.
****(b) This section does not apply to any of the following:
********(1) The entry into a dwelling by a law enforcement officer who has a reasonable belief that a person inside the dwelling has been or is at risk of physical harm.
********(2) An entry into a residence by invitation of at least one (1) adult resident, unless one (1) or more other adult residents object to the entry.
********(3) The entry into a dwelling by a law enforcement officer in
hot pursuit.
********(4) A person who is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime.
********(5) The entry into a dwelling by a law enforcement officer with a warrant.
****(c) A person may use force in accordance with this section to prevent or terminate a law enforcement officer's unlawful entry into the person's dwelling or into the dwelling of a member of the person's immediate family under one (1) or more of the following conditions:
********(1) The person does not have actual knowledge that the officer is a law enforcement officer, and the officer:
************(A) has not identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer; or
************(B) is not wearing a distinctive uniform or badge of authority.
********(2) The law enforcement officer is not engaged in the execution of the law enforcement officer's official duty.
****(d) A person may use reasonable force, including physical force, against a person described in subsection (c)(1), if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the unlawful entry into the dwelling.
****(e) A person may not use physical force against a law enforcement officer described in subsection (c)(2) unless the person has no adequate alternative to prevent or terminate the unlawful entry into the dwelling.
****(f) A person who is justified in using force under this section is not required to retreat.

Streck-Fu · 06-20-2012, 06:32

Quote:

In fact, top law enforcement officials and organizations in Indiana praised the bill.

Not in local conversation....

LINK

Quote:

Prosecutor and police groups have objected to a list of limited situations in which officers can legally enter a private home, which was included in the bill the Senate approved 45-5 last month.