Police Entering Homes Without a Warrant

[unsinkable]

I wondered if, by "resist", the court was talking about resistance by force (as opposed to simply saying "I do not consent to a search of my home"). One man's "resisting unlawful police entry" is another man's "assaulting a police officer". While there are some bad cops out there, like in any other group of people, and I am pro-civil-disobedience in some cases, on the whole I am anti-assaulting-cops (except perhaps in the midst of egregious cases of police brutality). Thus I was curious about the context for the quote you cited from this case. In a brief Google search, I did not find the full decision in the case, but I did find this summary, which has a more complex description of the case. (tl;dr: The castle doctrine is not a defense to the crime of battery or other violent acts on a police officer.)

 

 

 

 

FACTS

Defendant convicted at trial for battering a police officer and resisting arrest. When police officers responded to a “domestic violence in progress call†arrived at the scene, the husband, assaulted and engaged in a scuffle with the responding police officer. In fact, Barnes had only been throwing things against the wall and had not been physically assaulting the victim. When police arrived he was in the parking lot and spoke with police. After the victim threw his things out the door Barnes went back into the house and told officers they could not come in, at which time he blocked the doorway. The victim did not explicitly invite the officers in. One officer attempted to enter the apartment and was shoved by defendant and the scuffle then ensued.

 

PROCEDURE

At trial Barnes tried to assert a jury instruction of the right to reasonably resist an unlawful entry into one’s home. The trial court refused the instruction and the jury convicted. The court of appeals found the court erred in refusing to give instruction and ordered a new trial. *Instruction is required when it is a correct statement of the law and not covered by any other instruction and relevant to the facts.

 

ISSUE

Whether the right to reasonably resist an unlawful entry extends to entry by a police officer.

 

HOLDING

Conviction affirmed. The castle doctrine is not a defense to the crime of battery or other violent acts on a police officer. While a defendant may reasonably resist an unlawful arrest, reasonable resistance does not include battery or violent acts against police officers. “We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action.†“We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest—as evident by the facts of this instant case.â€

A warrant is not always required to lawfully enter a home (when the officer is in hot pursuit). Moreover, the officer could have made a mistake and good faith, which would subject him to physical harm.

As an aside, I think this video does an excellent job of explaining your rights when interacting with a police officer. It is long, but worthwhile, particularly for new drivers and young men of color.

 

 

 

http://www.theindianalawyer.com/supreme-court-upholds-barnes-ruling/PARAMS/article/27202

 

In the Vanderburgh Superior case, police responded to a 911 call by an Evansville man’s wife about a domestic dispute. When they arrived, Richard Barnes was in the parking lot and the wife came outside unharmed, but both went back inside the apartment. When police tried to follow, Barnes told them they couldn’t enter, blocking them and shoving one officer against the wall, continuing to struggle with him. Barnes was subdued, charged, and ultimately found guilty of resisting police, battery on an officer, and disorderly conduct.

[unsinkable]

So, I started this bc I am wondering what happened to the wife.

[MercyA]

I'm not sure, but apparently the husband was in the process of moving out of their apartment when it all went down.  See article here.

[Carol in Cal.]

That's a thorough article, Mercy.

 

It sounds like the wife more or less gave the officer permission to enter, in which case the husband really has no case.

 

OTOH, I'm troubled by part of the summary, in bold:

 

The Indiana Supreme Court adopted the more common sense approach, which makes it illegal for a citizen to resist the officer’s efforts.  This does not mean the citizen is giving up any rights; they are merely saving the ‘fight’ for another day and without physical confrontation. The citizen can still challenge the search both in the criminal court (assuming evidence was seized that can be excluded if the officer was wrong) and in the civil courts where the citizen can sue the officer who unlawfully enters. The only thing the citizen is precluded from doing is physically confronting the officer at the door.  Thus, the citizen must obey the officer’s action at the scene and grieve the action later in the courts. This represents the safer approach for the officer and also for citizen safety.

 

[Mergath]

That's a thorough article, Mercy.

 

It sounds like the wife more or less gave the officer permission to enter, in which case the husband really has no case.

 

OTOH, I'm troubled by part of the summary, in bold:

 

The Indiana Supreme Court adopted the more common sense approach, which makes it illegal for a citizen to resist the officer’s efforts.  This does not mean the citizen is giving up any rights; they are merely saving the ‘fight’ for another day and without physical confrontation. The citizen can still challenge the search both in the criminal court (assuming evidence was seized that can be excluded if the officer was wrong) and in the civil courts where the citizen can sue the officer who unlawfully enters. The only thing the citizen is precluded from doing is physically confronting the officer at the door.  Thus, the citizen must obey the officer’s action at the scene and grieve the action later in the courts. This represents the safer approach for the officer and also for citizen safety.

 

That's how it's always been, though. You do what the officer tells you in the moment, and if he/she didn't have cause to enter your home/pull you over/arrest you/whatever, you take legal action after the fact. There would be a lot more cop/civilian violence if the rule was that you didn't have to listen to the cops anytime you didn't agree with them.

[Chess Dad]

In my 20 years and counting of law enforcement, I've been to many, many domestic violence calls.  Though similar calls can have different circumstances, from what I read here this one is a simple call.  The police officers were called to this residence and it's a domestic violence situation.  Whether the wife was unharmed or not upon the officers arrival doesn't mean that it couldn't quickly escalate.  I've seen calm situations turn quickly, especially Domestic Violence calls.  It is crucial that the officers have situation resolved before they leave.  Either one of the persons leave, someone is arrested, or both persons are calm and agree that no further arguing will continue.  The police were called and it's their job to resolve this situation.  The husband running back into the house, locking the door, and saying police can't enter is not resolving the situation.  

 

This husband's conviction should stand. The officers were correct in going in this residence.  Hopefully the wife is ok and obtained a restraining order or a Domestic Violence Order to keep him away.

 

:patriot:  

[livetoread]

I think allowing physical resistance to cops, even if they are entering illegally, would be a very bad thing. There are procedures to address it afterwards, but physically preventing cops from entering? Nope. How are the cops supposed to distinguish between an upstanding citizen protecting his rights from an illegal entry and a thug trying to resist arrest and take out a cop while he's at it? I can't see how that could possibly work out well for either side.

[Pam in CT]

Thanks for the article, Mercy.  Facts are our friends...  :laugh:

 

 

The Indiana Supreme Court Barnes v. State of Indiana decision (about the DV case in which the homeowner tackled a cop, referenced over on the KY clerk thread) was filed in May 20111.   

 

In March 2012, in response to the Barnes case, the Indiana legislature evidently passed legislation to expand / clarify (depending on viewpoint) the existing Castle Doctrine law (that link is an article summarizing the law; I didn't find one to the law itself).  Advocates of the new law claim it gives enhanced "stand your ground" protection against unlawful entry.  Many police argued lobbied hard against it.

 

 

 

 

[Ravin]

The standard exigencies for police to enter a home without a warrant or consent are concern for destruction of evidence they have probable cause to think is present and about to be destroyed (the "about to flush the drugs" type situation), concern for the safety of those inside (the "passed out on the floor" or "unlawfully held person" type scenarios), and hot pursuit (chasing a suspect and they ran into the house).

 

This case fell into the second exigency.

[Rosie_0801]

I suppose the husband is at least on the record as being an wee bit controlling. How do you claim the right to defend yourself against unlawful entry at a property you no longer reside at yourself?

[Carol in Cal.]

Weird bizarro world thing that happened to me:

 

We live in an intertidal zone kind of neighborhood.  It's really nice sometimes, and kind of dangerous cityish other times.  

 

There is a house kitty corner across the street from us where some really, really bad things have happened.  

 

It is often the case that a skizophrenic woman hangs out in front of it and screams in the middle of the night, and it's sometimes hard to distinguish between her being herself and really bad things happening, like the time when someone passed out and drowned in the tub there a few years ago.  So often if we can't see that she is basically safe we call the police, and others do as well.

 

So one time when I didn't have to get up that early my DH called the police from our house and then left.  The dispatch recorded the address of the incident, but the 911 system indicated that the call source was our house.  A police car came to the scene, and parked in front of our next door neighbor's house (because parking is only allowed on our side of the street, so he couldn't park in front of the incident house.)  The officer must have gone into the other house to investigate.  It was early in the morning, and our drapes were down, so I never did see him arrive--no sirens.  So I didn't know he was there.

In the meantime DH went to work.  Another police car showed up, the officer knocked on our side door, yelled out that this was the police.  I looked through the window at the badge and then opened up, and he started yelling at me, asking where his colleague was, and when I told him I didn't know, he yelled that he knew that he had come into this house, and he made threatening, intimidating gestures like he was going to run over me and come inside the house whether I let him or not.  I told him that there was no officer in the house, that I assumed that if there was one on the scene it was kitty corner across the street where the incident was.  I'm not a small person but this guy was built like a linebacker, and fairly tweaked.  Reconstructing what happened, the other guy must have radioed that he was going in, and without backup that was probably fairly dangerous.  So the second officer misread the incident report and rushed to the scene, saw the police car, and was running to the guy's rescue.  

 

Nothing happened, but sometimes it does in circumstances like that, and you do hear DWB kinds of stories that start similarly to this one and end up with some innocent bystander civilian(s) getting badly hurt.  I'm sensitive to that possibility.  That's why cases like the one in the OP concern me.    

 

 

[Danestress]

Here is a link to the court's actual opinion. It's short and easy to read.

 

The court did not even determine whether the entry by police was unlawful (which it almost certainly wasn't). The court addressed the question of whether the jury should have been given an instruction on the common law right to resist unlawful entry by a police officer and determined that there is no right to resist entry by a police officer, even if it is unlawful, but that there are legal means to later seek redress.

 

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf

[Sneezyone]

I think the problem is that these legal means to seek redress for unlawful entry or detention are often fictive. In reality, law enforcement is rarely held accountable for any injuries or deaths after the fact and financial settlements do not raise folks from the dead (and deaths and injuries have occurred when officers enter the wrong home or throw flash bang grenades, etc). At some point the Supreme Court will have to recalibrate the rules WRT law enforcement/civilian interactions.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

Nothing happened, but sometimes it does in circumstances like that, and you do hear DWB kinds of stories that start similarly to this one and end up with some innocent bystander civilian(s) getting badly hurt.  I'm sensitive to that possibility.  That's why cases like the one in the OP concern me.    

 

 

 

And do you think the "right" to assault the officer would make it safer?

[Carol in Cal.]

And do you think the "right" to assault the officer would make it safer?

Oh stop, CR, this is ridiculous.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think the problem is that these legal means to seek redress for unlawful entry or detention are often fictive. In reality, law enforcement is rarely held accountable for any injuries or deaths after the fact and financial settlements do not raise folks from the dead (and deaths and injuries have occurred when officers enter the wrong home or throw flash bang grenades, etc). At some point the Supreme Court will have to recalibrate the rules WRT law enforcement/civilian interactions.

 

But again, do you think giving someone the right to assault/shoot someone they *know* is a policeman would make those interactions safer?

 

The USSC really can't recalibrate the laws as easily as state legislatures can, starting with actual police oversight and eliminating the use of no-knock warrants.

[Sneezyone]

But again, do you think giving someone the right to assault/shoot someone they *know* is a policeman would make those interactions safer?

 

The USSC really can't recalibrate the laws as easily as state legislatures can, starting with actual police oversight and eliminating the use of no-knock warrants.

 

I believe that bullies thrive in environments where their aggression goes unchallenged and unpunished and I do not consider the defense of life or personal property assault. This particular case doesn't provide the best example but, for example with James Blake in NY, I think the officer would not have approached the encounter that way but for the knowledge that citizens are not free to defend themselves against police assaults. I also believe it's the obligation of the SC to revisit some of its decisions regarding the justifications for police stops and use of force. The discretion they've granted is being abused.

[Mergath]

Oh stop, CR, this is ridiculous.

 

But really, what do you see as the solution here? They can't strip police officers of their right to enter a home without permission when someone is hurt or ill, in danger, etc. And if a police officer feels the need to enter a home for one of the aforementioned reasons, just telling him or her no won't keep him/her out. (And thankfully so, in my case.) Thinking it through, I don't see any good solution. Do we say that police officers can never enter without a warrant under any circumstances, and so a guy can sit there and beat the crap out of his wife while the police twiddle their thumbs on the other side of the door waiting for a warrant? Do we make it legal to assault an officer if they try to enter without a warrant? 

 

I'm tired and I'm probably not articulating this clearly, but ideally, what would the law be on this?

 

(And please, if you all value my sanity, do not say that the mean old police officers should have just left that poor abuser alone to assault his wife in peace.)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I believe that bullies thrive in environments where their aggression goes unchallenged and unpunished and I do not consider the defense of life or personal property assault. This particular case doesn't provide the best example but, for example with James Blake in NY, I think the officer would not have approached the encounter that way but for the knowledge that citizens are not free to defend themselves against police assaults. I also believe it's the obligation of the SC to revisit some of its decisions regarding the justifications for police stops and use of force. The discretion they've granted is being abused.

 

I disagree.  In fact, if we have a system where it is acceptable for someone to defend themselves with violence if they *think* an officer is acting without just cause (and let's be honest, that isn't a judgement many can make accurately on the fly), then I think we are moving towards a system that is even more confrontational. 

 

Better policing will not come from allowing citizens to fight it out with the police.  It will come from a continued push for oversight and prosecution when crimes are committed by the police.  Police and city management that allow bad cops to remain on the job after numerous civil lawsuits will also need to be addressed.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

(And please, if you all value my sanity, do not say that the mean old police officers should have just left that poor abuser alone to assault his wife in peace.)

  How dare you even insinuate that anyone on these boards would harbor such an idea?  This is disgusting.

[Mergath]

  How dare you even insinuate that anyone on these boards would harbor such an idea?  This is disgusting.

 

 

Seriously? 

 

Your post from the other thread:

 

 

The officer should not have entered the guy's house.  

 

The guy should not have assaulted him, but he was wrong to enter, and there is a right to reasonable defense of your home.  If the guy's wife had allowed the officer in, it would have been a different story.

 

[Sneezyone]

I disagree.  In fact, if we have a system where it is acceptable for someone to defend themselves with violence if they *think* an officer is acting without just cause (and let's be honest, that isn't a judgement many can make accurately on the fly), then I think we are moving towards a system that is even more confrontational. 

 

Better policing will not come from allowing citizens to fight it out with the police.  It will come from a continued push for oversight and prosecution when crimes are committed by the police.  Police and city management that allow bad cops to remain on the job after numerous civil lawsuits will also need to be addressed.

 

Correct, we disagree. The system as it exists is already confrontational. Only one side has the right to confront though and I think that's wrong. I am not willing to extend any more authority to law enforcement organizations that have shown no ability to remove unworthy individuals from their ranks (and protect the public from them). Having law enforcement authority is a privilege and it's being abused. To be clear, I'm fine with the exigent circumstances exceptions allowed under the law (crime in progress, chase, etc) but I have no faith, whatsoever, in the reasonableness standard as it is currently applied by law enforcement and believe it needs to be changed. We need to move to a strict scrutiny test for violations of civil rights.

[mamaraby]

I think the officer would not have approached the encounter that way but for the knowledge that citizens are not free to defend themselves against police assaults.

Seriously? I think in that world LEOs would choose not to do much period in the interests of going home safely at the end of the night. What would be the point if the defense by any and every individual was, "I thought the officer was overstepping so I chose to beat the crap out of him/her or shoot him/her in the defense of my life and property."

 

The solution to the confrontational system is not more and greater confrontation. You don't escalate a situation in order to solve it. You want LEOs to be better at desecalation? You need a culture that prizes deescalation over standing your ground.

[Carol in Cal.]

And, hello?  I also said after the more extended report that it sounded to me that he was alright to go in, which was DISPUTED by someone else.  Go pick on them if you must pick on someone.  Better yet, stop.

You have no right to accuse me or anyone else on this board of excusing domestic violence.  

That's disgusting and very offensive.   

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Correct, we disagree. The system as it exists is already confrontational. Only one side has the right to confront though and I think that's wrong. I am not willing to extend any more authority to law enforcement organizations that have shown no ability to remove unworthy individuals from their ranks (and protect the public from them). Having law enforcement authority is a privilege and it's being abused. To be clear, I'm fine with the exigent circumstances exceptions allowed under the law (crime in progress, chase, etc) but I have no faith, whatsoever, in the reasonableness standard as it is currently applied by law enforcement and believe it needs to be changed. We need to move to a strict scrutiny test for violations of civil rights.

 

The funny thing is I don't disagree with what you posted.  I disagree that we get there by allowing more citizens to get violent with LEOs when they think they are being wronged. 

And to be clear, he decision in Indiana did not extend any additional authority to police officers.

[Carol in Cal.]

But as I have said, very carefully, on this thread, I have concerns about a principle that says, "Go ahead and let him in and get redress later."  And this is specifically because I know people, my own self, who have been harassed by police and had it end up fairly badly.  There has to be a good reason, a motivation under the law, for the police to remain within boundaries as well; and even if it does not pertain to this specific case, the breadth of the decision, as described earlier, allows for a great deal of abuse.  That concerns me.  I don't know exactly what to do about it, but it does concern me.  

 

Accusing me of favoring domestic violence because of that concern is horrendous.

[Mergath]

And, hello?  I also said after the more extended report that it sounded to me that he was alright to go in, which was DISPUTED by someone else.  Go pick on them if you must pick on someone.  Better yet, stop.

You have no right to accuse me or anyone else on this board of excusing domestic violence.  

That's disgusting and very offensive.   

 

You knew in the post I quoted that this was a domestic assault case. You still thought the officer was wrong for going in.

 

And you're the one freaking out here, not me.

[Carol in Cal.]

You knew in the post I quoted that this was a domestic assault case. You still thought the officer was wrong for going in.

 

And you're the one freaking out there, not me.

No, the original post did not call it domestic assault, but specifically domestic dispute with no assault.  Specifically.

 

Slander is not freaking out?  Well alrighty then.

[Sneezyone]

Seriously? I think in that world LEOs would choose not to do much period in the interests of going home safely at the end of the night. What would be the point if the defense by any and every individual was, "I thought the officer was overstepping so I chose to beat the crap out of him/her or shoot him/her in the defense of my life and property."

 

The solution to the confrontational system is not more and greater confrontation. You don't escalate a situation in order to solve it. You want LEOs to be better at desecalation? You need a culture that prizes deescalation over standing your ground.

 

In the case of Mr. Blake, nothing would have been better, yes.

 

Compliance above all isn't working. It hasn't worked, ever, in this country. It didn't work in the 20s and 30s. It didn't work in the 40s and 50's. It definitely didn't work in the 60s and 70s. It isn't working now. The fact that the officer involved with Mr. Blake wracked up four/five complaints in his short career and was still on the job (with most of those complaints being ignored) is telling. Law enforcement has proven incapable of policing itself. You can't even send an officer to jail for partially paralyzing a compliant, elderly man with a WWE leg-sweep. Compliance isn't working and I'm ready for my hands to be untied.

[Mergath]

No, the original post did not call it domestic assault, but specifically domestic dispute with no assault.  Specifically.

 

Slander is not freaking out?  Well alrighty then.

 

Where the hell did I slander you? I said, "If YOU ALL value my sanity..." Referring to the board as a whole, because there are people here who don't think the police should ever enter a home without permission no matter what is going on and I don't feel like debating them tonight. Good grief. If you don't feel that way, I WASN'T TALKING TO YOU.

[Sneezyone]

The funny thing is I don't disagree with what you posted.  I disagree that we get there by allowing more citizens to get violent with LEOs when they think they are being wronged. 

And to be clear, he decision in Indiana did not extend any additional authority to police officers.

 

I don't think it did either, if we believe there was a domestic violence incident in progress. I do think, however, that there have been significant expansions of law enforcement authority that need to be curtailed, specifically with respect to stops and use of force.

[Carol in Cal.]

" Referring to the board as a whole, because there If you don't feel that way, I WASN'T TALKING TO YOU.

Tell you what, next time you're 'not talking to me', don't cite my post as what you're replying to.

[Mergath]

Tell you what, next time you're 'not talking to me', don't cite my post as what you're replying to.

 

And here I thought saying specifically that I was referring to ALL the people would have made it clear that I was talking to ALL the people.

 

I am done talking to you. You'll have to conclude your nonsensical ranting without me.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

But as I have said, very carefully, on this thread, I have concerns about a principle that says, "Go ahead and let him in and get redress later."  And this is specifically because I know people, my own self, who have been harassed by police and had it end up fairly badly.  There has to be a good reason, a motivation under the law, for the police to remain within boundaries as well; and even if it does not pertain to this specific case, the breadth of the decision, as described earlier, allows for a great deal of abuse.  That concerns me.  I don't know exactly what to do about it, but it does concern me. 

 

Well if after the fact is not acceptable, what do you have left?

 

And the breadth of the decision?  Let's see...the decision said you can resist within reason, but cannot assault an officer.  So what is left?

 

[Sneezyone]

Well if after the fact is not acceptable, what do you have left?

 

And the breadth of the decision?  Let's see...the decision said you can resist within reason, but cannot assault an officer.  Son what is left?

 

 

If I'm standing in my doorway, can the officer shove me out of the way or pull me outside? Can I stand my ground or push back? Because that's happened and the officer involved was kept the job (citizens paid). If I'm standing in my fenced yard, can the officer enter my yard and begin an altercation? If I'm sitting in my living room with the door open, can an officer enter and shoot me in my home when I use my cane to shoo them away (because that happened too, in Little Rock)? Who's being assaulted or accosted in those instances?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I don't think it did either, if we believe there was a domestic violence incident in progress. I do think, however, that there have been significant expansions of law enforcement authority that need to be curtailed, specifically with respect to stops and use of force.

 

I can't think of any recent use of force decisions that stood out to me, but there was at least one regarding stops I thought was off.

 

At the same time we get Riley v California which restricts the ability of the police to search cell phones.

[Sneezyone]

I can't think of any recent use of force decisions that stood out to me, but there was at least one regarding stops I thought was off.

 

At the same time we get Riley v California which restricts the ability of the police to search cell phones.

 

And the only reason we got that, IMHO, is because it protects white collar criminals and journalists. Many of the decisions out there right now, like the one essentially clarifying when a stop must end and how long an officer can hold you, merely shifted the order in which they do things. All it did was say to law enforcement, you can do your BS stop, just be sure not to hand over the summons until you've run all of your unreasonable, warrantless, database searches.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

If I'm standing in my doorway, can the officer shove me out of the way or pull me outside? Can I stand my ground or push back? Because that's happened and the officer involved was kept the job (citizens paid). If I'm standing in my fenced yard, can the officer enter my yard and begin an altercation? If I'm sitting in my living room with the door open, can an officer enter and shoot me in my home when I use my cane to shoo them away (because that happened too, in Little Rock)? Who's being assaulted or accosted in those instances?

 

In all cases (except the shooting**)...it depends.

 

And I must ask, if you feel there is no way to get redress after the fact, how do you think assaulting the police officer will end any better?

 

**Can you provide a link to an article on the shooting? I searched and everyone I find has facts significantly different than the ones in your post so I don't think I found the right ones.

 

ETA: is this it?

http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2010/dec/10/little-rock-police-investigate-shooting-officer/?latest

[ChocolateReignRemix]

And the only reason we got that, IMHO, is because it protects white collar criminals and journalists. Many of the decisions out there right now, like the one essentially clarifying when a stop must end and how long an officer can hold you, merely shifted the order in which they do things. All it did was say to law enforcement, you can do your BS stop, just be sure not to hand over the summons until you've run all of your unreasonable, warrantless, database searches.

 

Database searches do not require a warrant.  Why do you think they should?  Also, running a check during the issuing of a traffic citation is not unreasonable.

 

Now if we are talking stop and frisk, I would agree with you.

 

I also don't think you have any basis for your claim about why we have the Riley decision considering the case itself was about meth trafficking.

[Sneezyone]

In all cases (except the shooting**)...it depends.

 

And I must ask, if you feel there is no way to get redress after the fact, how do you think assaulting the police officer will end any better?

 

**Can you provide a link to an article on the shooting? I searched and everyone I find has facts significantly different than the ones in your post so I don't think I found the right ones.

 

It's not that I believe assaulting a LEO will improve things per se, but that the recalibration of expectations will improve things. We don't grab people about the neck for selling illegal lemonade by the roadside because we know a) it's a minor offense and b) we might get hurt. That calculus is all too often missing IMHO.

 

As for the shooting, the victim was Mr. Eugene Ellison. Both of his sons were on the police force at the time. Both experienced retaliation for pressing the lawsuit. The shooter was an off duty officer working security at an apartment complex. After killing Mr. Ellison, she phoned her husband, also an officer, to get her story straight. He did not ever report being called to the scene.

 

Little Rock shooting: fresh testimony casts doubt on police ...

Family Pushes for Justice 4 Years After Officer-Involved ...

[Sneezyone]

Database searches do not require a warrant.  Why do you think they should?  Also, running a check during the issuing of a traffic citation is not unreasonable.

 

Now if we are talking stop and frisk, I would agree with you.

 

I also don't think you have any basis for your claim about why we have the Riley decision considering the case itself was about meth trafficking.

 

I think the means by which names are gathered and entered into those databases are discriminatory (by school resource officers, stop and frisk stops, etc). I think the way those databases are used to extend stops and bring suspicion on individuals is rage-inducing. I also think this Supreme Court has shown that it's perfectly willing to take any case and make it suit whatever purpose they want.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It's not that I believe assaulting a LEO will improve things per se, but that the recalibration of expectations will improve things. We don't grab people about the neck for selling illegal lemonade by the roadside because we know a) it's a minor offense and b) we might get hurt. That calculus is all too often missing IMHO.

 

As for the shooting, the victim was Mr. Eugene Ellison. Both of his sons were on the police force at the time. Both experienced retaliation for pressing the lawsuit. The shooter was an off duty officer working security at an apartment complex. After killing Mr. Ellison, she phoned her husband, also an officer, tholepin her get her story straight. He did not ever report being called to or at the scene.

 

Little Rock shooting: fresh testimony casts doubt on police ...

Family Pushes for Justice 4 Years After Officer-Involved ...

 

I found a link and added an ETA.

 

Based on what I read, the officers likely entered the apartment legally if the facts are reported are true (door open, apartment in disarray) as a welfare check would be reasonable.

 

What happened later is in dispute, but I don't see how it makes a case for saying that allowing a physical defense against law enforcement will lead to better outcomes.  In fact, I think it says the opposite as the officers very likely had a legitimate reason for entry.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think the means by which names are gathered and entered into those databases are discriminatory (by school resource officers, stop and frisk stops, etc). I think the way those databases are used to extend stops and bring suspicion on individuals is rage-inducing. I also think this Supreme Court has shown that it's perfectly willing to take any case and make it suit whatever purpose they want.

 

Again, I have no issue with warrant checks on legitimate traffic stops.

[Sneezyone]

I found a link and added an ETA.

 

Based on what I read, the officers likely entered the apartment legally if the facts are reported are true (door open, apartment in disarray) as a welfare check would be reasonable.

 

What happened later is in dispute, but I don't see how it makes a case for saying that allowing a physical defense against law enforcement will lead to better outcomes.  In fact, I think it says the opposite as the officers very likely had a legitimate reason for entry.

 

They were not called to make a welfare check. They were not acting as LEOs but private security. I don't know if you've been but Little Rock gets hot. Leaving your door open is not uncommon. If you walked into my old man's house things would be in disarray too. He's messy. Upon entering and discovering that you misunderstood the situation do you a) apologize and leave, b) argue with the man about your right to enter his home, or c) shoot the old man dead? The fact that you believe the actions of this officer to be legit gives further credence to my position that something is seriously jacked up with our laws and the interpretation of them. Does it trouble you at all to know that the individuals who chose option 'c' are still on the force?

[Sneezyone]

Again, I have no issue with warrant checks on legitimate traffic stops.

 

Who's word are you taking re: legitimacy?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Who's word are you taking re: legitimacy?

 

If they have an actual legal reason for pulling someone over, under the law the stop is legitimate.  And yes, an officer can lie or profile but realistically most stops are for traffic violations and running a warrant check is valid.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

They were not called to make a welfare check. They were not acting as LEOs but private security. I don't know if you've been but Little Rock gets hot. Leaving your door open is not uncommon. If you walked into my old man's house things would be in disarray too. He's messy. Upon entering and discovering that you misunderstood the situation do you a) apologize and leave, b) argue with the man about your right to enter his home, or c) shoot the old man dead? The fact that you believe the actions of this officer to be legit gives further credence to my position that something is seriously jacked up with our laws and the interpretation of them. Does it trouble you at all to know that the individuals who chose option 'c' are still on the force?

 

1.) I have been to Little Rock and where I live is hotter.  The incident was in December, so not at the height of a heat wave.

 

2.) They do not have to be called for a welfare check.  The point is an open door + disarray is an indicator someone may be in need.

 

3.) Your argument is becoming absurd when you refuse to even begin to accept why this was *possibly* a legitimate entry.

 

And again, you are proving my case as to why expanding the rights of citizens to assault the police is not a good idea.

[Sneezyone]

1.) I have been to Little Rock and where I live is hotter.  The incident was in December, so not at the height of a heat wave.

 

2.) They do not have to be called for a welfare check.  The point is an open door + disarray is an indicator someone may be in need.

 

3.) Your argument is becoming absurd when you refuse to even begin to accept why this was *possibly* a legitimate entry.

 

And again, you are proving my case as to why expanding the rights of citizens to assault the police is not a good idea.

 

I think it would be absurd to give the benefit of the doubt to an organization that hasn't demonstrated that it deserves it. I know most folks are not at the 'I don't trust LEOs as far as I can throw them' place yet but I can at least respect your view. Like LEOs though, not so much courtesy extended in the other direction. We'd all be better off if it were.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think it would be absurd to give the benefit of the doubt to an organization that hasn't demonstrated that it deserves it. I know most folks are not at the 'I don't trust LEOs as far as I can throw them' place yet but I can at least respect your view. Like LEOs though, not so much courtesy extended in the other direction. We'd all be better off if it were.

 

Whether the entry was lawful or not doesn't require much benefit of the doubt.  If the door was open and the apartment was in disarray, it is something a reasonable cop, security guard or even caring neighbor may do.  From that point on I don't know what happened, but I think your initial claim that he just "shoo'd" them away with the cane seems even more speculative.

 

This demonstrates flaws in our system, but I don't think we agree on which ones (some, but not all).

[Susan Wise Bauer]

Carol and Mergath,

 

Take it to PM, please.