Glory Days;769947 wrote:Did you read the circumstances of the case. The police cant really just walk away in those situations. i would believe they were "acting in good faith".

But this ruling doesn't only affect cases like that.

Sets precedent for cops to do whatever they want without a warrant and have no criminal reprisal come against them for it. It's absurd.

I Wear Pants;770038 wrote:But this ruling doesn't only affect cases like that.

Sets precedent for cops to do whatever they want without a warrant and have no criminal reprisal come against them for it. It's absurd.

I am pretty sure though its always been a civil thing though, unless an actual crime has been committed. I could be wrong though.

Glory Days;770465 wrote:I am pretty sure though its always been a civil thing though, unless an actual crime has been committed. I could be wrong though.

Is entering someone's house against their will and then electrifying and beating them when they try to repel you not a crime? Now in the specific case involved in that it gets cloudier becasue it was a domestic violence thing. But let's say it's for something else and the cop has no legal right to enter the house and does anyway. Why is the occupant not allowed to defend his home as if against any other home invader?

Also, even if the cop just entered and didn't hit the guy or anything. If I break into or enter someone's home without there permission I can sure as hell be charged with a crime. Why not cops when they don't follow the rules?

Here's the real scary part for me, IWP - This came from the Indiana Supreme Court. This wasn't some lower level court case that got tossed by the appellate course somewhere. This one has teeth. Maybe not the biggest teeth on the continent, but big ones nonetheless. If a supreme court of one of the states agrees it is just fine and dandy to assuage the 4th Amendment, all in the name of "reducing violence", then what's to stop any court from using this argument? The 4th Amendment is basically ignored in this case...because of a perceived public safety issue.

Yeah, I don't like it.

I Wear Pants;771620 wrote:Is entering someone's house against their will and then electrifying and beating them when they try to repel you not a crime? Now in the specific case involved in that it gets cloudier becasue it was a domestic violence thing. But let's say it's for something else and the cop has no legal right to enter the house and does anyway. Why is the occupant not allowed to defend his home as if against any other home invader?

Also, even if the cop just entered and didn't hit the guy or anything. If I break into or enter someone's home without there permission I can sure as hell be charged with a crime. Why not cops when they don't follow the rules?

yeah, but there is a different between a cop going rogue and hunting down his ex gf's new boyfriend to beat him to a pulp and a cop making a mistake and not remembering an obscure court decision from 1969 that doesnt allow him to enter the house in the situation he is in.

you also have to remember there are cases when the cops can enter your home. but you have people, who because they dont know the law, think the cops are entering illegally. i think the courts want to stop that before people think they can start "defending themselves" from cops, when the cops are actually within the law.

Glory Days;771886 wrote:yeah, but there is a different between a cop going rogue and hunting down his ex gf's new boyfriend to beat him to a pulp and a cop making a mistake and not remembering an obscure court decision from 1969 that doesnt allow him to enter the house in the situation he is in.

you also have to remember there are cases when the cops can enter your home. but you have people, who because they dont know the law, think the cops are entering illegally. i think the courts want to stop that before people think they can start "defending themselves" from cops, when the cops are actually within the law.

What you do there is arrest those people, you know, what a cops job is. And try to educate on what cops are and aren't allowed to do, your rights, etc.

But what you don't do is say "oh it's hard for a police officer to know all the laws he's supposed to be upholding so if he breaks one we'll let it slide". No. Police need to be held to the exact same stardard as everyone else because they are exactly like everyone else. They are not above the law they are supposed to be upholding it. And again, I'm not saying this in reaction to the particular case used here. Just that I do not like at all what this case sets a precedent for which is an enormous potential for the abuse of power. And if we've learned anything over the years it's that men will always abuse power if they can.

I Wear Pants;772441 wrote:And if we've learned anything over the years it's that men will always abuse power if they can.

I tend not to use the more extreme profanities flippantly. However ...

A-fucking-men.

I Wear Pants;772441 wrote:And if we've learned anything over the years it's that men will always abuse power if they can.

Women too....my sister is a deputy sheriff. lol

O-Trap;772488 wrote:A-fucking-men.

Hallelujah

I Wear Pants;772441 wrote:What you do there is arrest those people, you know, what a cops job is. And try to educate on what cops are and aren't allowed to do, your rights, etc.

thats exactly what this case is doing. its educating people. its saying, just because a cop makes a mistake, doesnt mean you could shoot them for entering your house.

No, it sets legal precedent that police can unlawfully enter your house with essentially no reprisal.

Does that mean that cops are going to start doing this willy nilly? Probably no more than they already do. But that doesn't make the legal ramifications of this any less disconcerting.

http://www.change.org/petitions/protect-the-fourth-amendment-end-illegal-police-entry

Now we have a taxpayer-paid position created to hunt down those who like to exercise their 1st Amendment rights - http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/white-house-dedicates-new-position-to-deal-with-unfavorable-online-media_b36292

I suppose if this was a DNC-related position, it could at least be funded by people that like to have their rights trampled upon. But it isn't. I remember Nixon getting whip-sawed relentlessly for having an "enemies list". That is so passe nowadays.

Glory Days;773058 wrote:thats exactly what this case is doing. its educating people. its saying, just because a strange man makes a mistake, doesnt mean you could shoot them for entering your house.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

If law enforcement wishes to speak with me (as they do on occasion living where I do), I will gladly speak with them on my front porch or in the yard. Hell, I'll grab a lawn chair for him.

An uninvited person in my house is an intruder, regardless of whether it's a police officer or not.

Glory Days;773058 wrote:thats exactly what this case is doing. its educating people. its saying, just because a cop makes a mistake, doesnt mean you could shoot them for entering your house.

I wasn't aware this person shot the officer. And if I think that person is an intruder I am legally allowed to defend my home.

What makes a police officer forcing his way (illegally with no warrant or legal right) into someone's home anything but an intruder?

O-Trap;778876 wrote:
An uninvited person in my house is an intruder, regardless of whether it's a police officer or not.

exactly the reasoning for this case.

I Wear Pants;778953 wrote:I wasn't aware this person shot the officer. And if I think that person is an intruder I am legally allowed to defend my home.

What makes a police officer forcing his way (illegally with no warrant or legal right) into someone's home anything but an intruder?

they werent, but i think that is what its trying to prevent. and what makes them not an intruder, the fact they are identifying themselves as police. legal or illegal, deal with that later in court. but dont resist the police just because "you" think they shouldnt be there.

But this case established that police cannot be criminally tried for that correct? Or at least that's what the court ruled right?

You don't think that's going to be abused Glory Days?

Glory Days;779129 wrote:exactly the reasoning for this case.

But the court ruled that the police are not intruders.

Glory Days;779129 wrote:exactly the reasoning for this case.

I certainly agree it's something that needs addressed, but an illegal intruder is an illegal intruder. If he brings a court-ordered search warrant, he is more than welcome into my home, and he can go wherever he needs to go in order to do his job.

But my family's safety and my home's security does not play second fiddle to asking questions of the intruder. I have nothing to hide, so I am more than willing to let an officer into my home. The officer has nothing to hide if he's doing his job, so he shouldn't have a hard time obtaining a warrant and entering my home via legal means.

I Wear Pants;779527 wrote:But the court ruled that the police are not intruders.

It's ridiculous, isn't it?

Police never abuse their power, right? Damn. Of all the threads I'd LIKE to see Ender on.

So if someone wants access to my home illegally, and he goes out and buys what looks like an official police uniform and has a badge that looks realistic ... should I just assume he's a cop until otherwise? I shouldn't take into account the fact that a person's ACTIONS may be demonstrative of a potential threat? I certainly

Sorry, but that's ludicrous.

If an officer comes in through legal means (or hell, POLITE means will suffice ... just knock on the door and show your badge ... make your patrol car visible in the driveway or on the street ... I'll let you in and make you a sandwich), I am A-OK with him or her.

I Wear Pants;779527 wrote:But this case established that police cannot be criminally tried for that correct? Or at least that's what the court ruled right?

You don't think that's going to be abused Glory Days?

But the court ruled that the police are not intruders.

police are not intruders when conducting official business or acting in "good faith". if a bunch of cops dont like you for some reason and decide to bust into your house and kick your ass, they'll be held accountable just like cops usually are criminally.

O-Trap;779713 wrote: So if someone wants access to my home illegally, and he goes out and buys what looks like an official police uniform and has a badge that looks realistic ... should I just assume he's a cop until otherwise? I shouldn't take into account the fact that a person's ACTIONS may be demonstrative of a potential threat? I certainly

thats called impersonating a police officer and is a crime. and you can apply that scenario anywhere, not just your home. do you always question a cop to make sure he is a cop before talking to him/her?

If an officer comes in through legal means (or hell, POLITE means will suffice ... just knock on the door and show your badge ... make your patrol car visible in the driveway or on the street ... I'll let you in and make you a sandwich), I am A-OK with him or her.

whoa whoa whoa. why wouldnt your wife make the sammich?

Glory Days;782590 wrote:thats called impersonating a police officer and is a crime. and you can apply that scenario anywhere, not just your home. do you always question a cop to make sure he is a cop before talking to him/her?

Naturally, but if someone is demonstrating threatening actions, I sincerely doubt he's concerned about the impersonating charges.

For example, if someone is intending to commit armed robbery, I doubt that if I told him about the impersonating crime, he'd say, "Aw shucks," and leave.

As far as talking to him, of course not. I talk to officers on my front porch or in my driveway when they ask to speak with me. I don't, however, invite them into my home, and I would resist if they insisted on entering my home illegally.

Glory Days;782590 wrote:whoa whoa whoa. why wouldnt your wife make the sammich?

I'm better at it. She makes them for me, but I make them when there is company.

Glory Days;782560 wrote:police are not intruders when conducting official business or acting in "good faith". if a bunch of cops dont like you for some reason and decide to bust into your house and kick your ass, they'll be held accountable just like cops usually are criminally.

This case said they would be tried in civil court for things that happened from an unlawful entry didn't it?

Define official business? Because I'm sure police could make the claim that they were on official business at anytime and the even more dubious "good faith" excuse. All they have to do is say they thought they heard or saw something and they have carte blanche to illegally enter your home now if I'm reading this ruling correctly.