posted
You can - whether or not it works is a case by case basis.
But I was curious - because of cases of "cop imposters" and attempts by plain-clothes officers to effect arrests, could one legitimately claim self-defense?
In this case, apparently not. But if a man with a gun rushed me, I'd probably be focused on the gun in his hand and not what he was yelling.
posted
The problem is they don't come in "guns a blazing". They come in with guns drawn. This guy opened fire, which is why they come in with guns drawn in the first place. It's tough to claim self-defense when you shot first.
quote: It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately. -Thomas Jefferson
quote: It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men’s property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts. -Lysander Spooner
No individual has the right to break down my door or burst into my house armed or otherwise; therefore, no policeman does either. If that ever happens at our house, expect a similar headline.
quote:No individual has the right to break down my door or burst into my house armed or otherwise; therefore, no policeman does either. If that ever happens at our house, expect a similar headline
Right now, yes. You are not a criminal, you are not harming anyone else. If you become such, though, you have in a manner of speaking declared war upon society.
At that point, your home / castle stands ready to be invaded, and you have brought it upon yourself.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Despite your personal feelings and those of Mr. Spooner, if you commit a crime the police do, in fact, have the right to enter your home under the law.
posted
No. If I break the law and they wish to arrest me or someone at my home, they may knock on the door and it will all come to a civil, peaceful conclusion.
If they have a warrant for search or seizure, they may knock at the door and present the warrant.
Only if I or someone at my home is holding someone hostage or firing guns from the windows may they burst in.
The point is... if it's dark and we're all sleeping and we hear someone break into the house, there will be no asking for ID or to see a badge. You broke into my house and in order to protect ourselves, you get hurt. Even during the daytime, surprising my husband by breaking down the door is not a good idea. There will be severe consequences, and an unjust government might put him in jail for it, but that doesn't make it right.
As for the posted story--I have no idea if that man was in the right or not.
Sorry, but I'm not buying the argument that by breaking a law I am declaring war on society--a war on an unjust law, maybe. And a lot of law breaking doesn't involve hurting anyone else at all.
posted
I'd like to point out that law enforcement officers are trained to keep their fingers off the trigger until they are ready to fire.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually agree with Katarain on this one.
These guys bust in with m-16s drawn and point them right at your head. There have been many cases where they have killed someone who got surprised by an ATF/DEA enforcer. The natural reaction is to jump up or try to run. BANG! Some kid is dead. Why? Because he grows or distributes marijuana, and freaks out at the site of guns drawn.
They don't even try to knock on your door. They even intentionally do it at night.
It makes no sense! These are drug dealers, not terrorists. Not kidnappers. When you are pulled over, cops don't run at you with their gun drawn. They didn't burst into Ken Lay's house and stick a gun in his face.
I don't think the guy should have done what he did, but I agree that if the cops had shown up at his house and knocked on the door like any other type of cop, he would have went quietly.
This policy has to change. It hasn't changed after several times a suspect got killed, maybe it will now that some cops did.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Training standards vary wildly, as does practical range time and high-threat, high-stress training.
Being able to pass periodic certification exams with a handgun is not the same as ensuring an officer's competence and ability to handle a firearm correctly in a high-stress situation.
I'm not trying to offend Mrs. M and if I have done so, I'll apologize now - but I have some strong opinions on the relative training standards of police officers and their departments.
posted
I believe the reason why SWAT and similar tactical officers force entry in a loud and violent manner is to surprise the suspects and gain control of the situation before they have the opportunity to react and decide to resist or not.
I'm not saying I believe or disbelieve the theory behind the principle - simply pointing out some of the logic behind it.
posted
I shot the sheriff, but I swear it was in self-defense I shot the sheriff, and they say it is a capitol offense
Sheriff John Brown always hated me For what I don't know And ev'ry time I that plant a seed, he said kill it before it grow He said kill it before it grows (I say)
(c) Copyright 1974 by Cayman Music Inc.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it a gun, is it a knife Is it a wallet, this is your life It ain't no secret It ain't no secret No secret my friend You can get killed just for living In your American skin
posted
Something about this doesn't quite add up... Was the gun just sitting in his lap when the police burst in? In order to claim he shot them out of surprise and lack of knowledge as to who they were, the gun would have very nearly had be in his hand. Otherwise the police would have attempted to subdue him before he went for the gun, or if he wasn't in the same room he would have heard them shouting "POLICE! FREEZE!" before getting into a line of sight to fire.
My impulse reaction was to agree that if I had a gun in my hand and someone burst in the door I would fire. My second reaction was to despise the situation because the guy wasn't even the one they were there for. But in reality, I can't see a scenario where I would be in a situation to shoot a cop without having all doubt about their identity removed.
Can anyone think of a plausible manner in which one could accidentally shoot three cops in this scenario? (Saying accidentally to assume he wasn't intentionally gunning for the police, which would be another matter entirely). To me, the situation seems to suggest that he knew what his roommate was involved in, and that he knew someone was coming in the house. If that's so, I agree wholeheartedly with the verdict.
posted
Plus, the fact that two of them were shot in the back takes away from the self defense claim. It is hard to say you are defending yourself against someone who has their back facing you.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's the way it would seem from what little we know, Feyd. It's really tough to say without knowing more details of the case.
One day I will be involved in law enforcement, and my brother and sister are currently involved in law enforcement. I say this to openly admit my bias. I love the law and I love the folks who do this job.
That being said, the tactics that seem to have been used here are pretty standard. The element of surprise is used so the guys don't have a chance to think about running. The fact that two of these police officers were shot in the back while attempting to arrest this guys roommate leads me to believe, perhaps incorrectly, that his claim of self defense is somewhat less than true.
At the same time, there is no reason those officers should have been facing the other direction in this situation. The fact that they were not watching the roommate leads me to believe they used some poor judgement in the strategy to storm this house.
All told, it is always tragic when an officer dies in the line of duty. To somehow suggest that this is what these folks deserved for being cops in the first place is quite disheartening. Regardless of your views of specific drug laws, the deaths of police officers is not something to take lightly. Your fight is with the system, with the law, and there are ways to legally fight that fight. The officers who help to enforce that law are not the enemy.
posted
Didn't y'all see the Law & Order about this case? Granted, the details were changed, but still . . . It was called "41 Shots"
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trevor, you didn't offend me at all. I was speaking from my own experience - I have received instruction from police firearms trainers in 4 states and they all had extremely high standards.
I think it's hard for any of us to comment on this particular case b/c we just don't have enough information. We don't know the service record of any of the officers - for example, did any of the officers have excessive force complaints against them? It seems like the article would have mentioned something like that, but you never know. Also, I can't figure out how the dealer could have shot 2 of the officers in the back in self defense.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We also don't know the layout of the house, the actions of the officers involved and the sequence of events - as everyone else has noted, "we just don't know enough of the details."
A veteran officer was killed while serving a warrant several years ago because she ignored basic house-clearing protocol.
She ignored several rooms that hadn't been checked and "cleared" and proceeded to the end of the hallway.
The subject of the warrant came out of one of the doors she passed over and shot her - the bullet went in under her armpit, bypassing the body armor and killed her.
quote:It makes no sense! These are drug dealers, not terrorists.
You obviously aren't a cop in Ensley Alabama - I can assure you it's much like being in a war zone since my husband is a paramedic in the same area. The drug dealers are armed with assault weapons and they use them. How are the cops supposed to act? A drug dealer with a machine gun can kill you just as well as can a terrorist, and based on statistics, a lot more cops and citizens of the US will meet their end at the hand of drug dealers than will at the hand of terrorists.
My husband knew all three cops, but Harley Chisholm especially was a good friend.
These were good cops, and as far as I know there were no records of excessive force or major complaints against them. You aren't seeing any of the details of the case - for one thing, Officer Chisholm had already tried to serve the warrant earlier that day. The murderer knew they were coming and was laying in wait. It was an ambush. If an officer has already been at your house that day, looking for you by name with a warrant, then you can't claim you were "surprised" when they came back, especially when the officer tells you he will be back. He suspected there might be trouble, so he brought backup. They were uniformed officers lawfully executing a warrant and this guy laid up and opened fire on the first one before anybody could react. Then he killed the other two as they tried to come to the aid of their fellow officer.
Wes was off duty the day it happened, but he heard about it from the paramedics that made the call. Everyone involved said the cops were just mowed down in cold blood.
It was a very difficult, emotional day for everyone involved in public service in Birmingham. They were good men, Harley had been on the force a long time and was well known in the community and well liked by many.
The Birmingham police handled themselves commendably on that day, the suspect surrendered and was brought safely into custody and he was tried by our justice system, and found guilty. Everything worked the way it's supposed to.
And yet, three good men are dead. Out of respect for their families, and their friends, could we stop speculating on what the cops might have done to "deserve" getting shot? If you don't know the details and facts of the case, then please refrain from acting as if the cops did something to merit being mowed down in cold blood. From everything I've heard about the case, and the type of man my husband assures me Harley was, I am quite confident that the jury rendered the correct verdict.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But what if the same thing happened in my neighborhood? I live in middle to upper class white suburbia. There's little to no real crime here. I can't remember the last time we had any shooting related crime. The biggest crime that comes to mind actually involved my next door neighbor, who was arrested in the biggest drug bust in Michigan history. But even then it felt like more of a white collar crime, there weren't any guns involved.
Now I know my uncle has a gun in his home. We don't live in anything approaching a dangerous neighborhood, in fact my uncle's house was on the cover of Better Homes and Gardens two years ago. If the Royal Oak PD (my city) burst into his house to serve a warrant and he opened fire, would that really be that out of line?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does it say somewhere that they burst into the house without identifying themselves? Because I don't think that's how it happened. They had one person at the front door, and two at the back if I remember right. They identified themselves as police officers and asked the suspect to surrender and come out. Again, they had already been to the house looking for him, and he wasn't home. So the roommate knew the cops were coming back.
And yes, if you are in your house and the police tell you they are coming in to serve a warrant and you don't surrender but instead open fire, then you're guilty of murder, no matter what neighborhood you live in.
If I remember right, and my husband's asleep so I can't ask him, the first officer was shot on the front porch. The other two burst through the back door in an attempt to subdue the suspect and get to their fellow officer, and that's when the other gunman (whether it was the suspect or the roommate I'm not sure) shot them in the back. He was laying in wait for them in a room so that when they came through the door he had a clear shot at their backs. It was planned and premeditated.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem, Belle, is that DEA agents make no distinction from hard core crack houses to kids who happen to sell marijuana. My neighbor two houses down got raided by about 14 guys with M-16s. They of course kicked out his door. He had a couple roommates that had nothing to do with drugs, who also got M-16s pointed at their faces. The only thing he ever sold was pot, and he was small time too. Plus, he had never owned a gun.
But you are right, I didn't know the details of the case. I am mostly angry at the policies of the cops in my former home town. After reading 4-5 cases where cops wrongly killed people in drug raids over the last year or so (nationally, not my hometown), it was starting to make me sick. The war on drugs... Well lets just say that its a set of policies that I have issues with.
And if that "deserve" comment was directed at me, I never said that they deserved it, or tried to imply that's what I believe.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It wasn't directed at anyone in particular, this whole thing is very upsetting. See, the defense has tried to smear the cops reputations, by making allegations that they were dirty cops, which is not supported by any evidence at all and is very distressing to the families and the people that knew these guys. The self-defense argument is not about the cops bursting in the door and suprising him, he's claiming that the cops had threatened his life previously. The judge refused to allow that in, so the jury never even considered a self-defense argument.
Here is a link to an article that goes much more in depth.
quote:Prosecutors argued in the trial that the police were at an Ensley crack house to serve a misdemeanor warrant on Woods, 28, on June 17, 2004. They said Spencer was upset that the officers' presence interfered with his business, so he used an SKS rifle to kill Owen, Chisholm and Bennett in a premeditated attack.
Spencer also shot at a fleeing Collins, who took cover behind his patrol car and was hit in the hip with a bullet fragment.
Spencer claimed he fired in self-defense because at least two of the officers had threatened to kill him.
Prior to trial, one of Spencer's defense attorneys said two of the officers had received past payments to protect the dope house. When the payments stopped, the police started harassing those at the apartment, lawyer Scott Boudreaux said then.
That information was not presented to jurors at trial. A defense witness slated to give "crucial evidence" to their case never showed up to testify.
Many of those in and around the trial said the guilty verdict was especially satisfying, not only because it punishes the murderer, but because it may help clear the officers' reputations after a trial surrounded by accusations and innuendo.
"The truth speaks for itself, and the truth spoke for itself in this case," said Collins, the lone police survivor from that day. "It's easy to talk about the dead when they can't defend themselves."
Like I said, very upsetting things have been said, with no basis to back them up, no evidence at all. It's easy to call a cop a dirty cop when he's dead.
And I hate to even bring this up, because rumor and innuendo is so damaging, but this article does show how there was definite premeditation involved. This was no case of a man sitting innocently in his house and being surprised by a bunch of people pointing guns at him. He admits he planned to kill them when they showed up, he just tried to justify it by saying THEY had threatened him. Again, easy to say it was the dead cops who were dirty.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Xavier, the DEA makes a large distinction between 14 year olds selling pot and crack dealers who commit homicides. My brother happens to be a DEA agent, and I have done some volunteer work for the DEA over the last year or so. I have pretty intimate knowledge of their methods.
Individual cops that you have problems with in your area are not neccessarily representative of an entire federal agency on the national level. Plus, there is a large difference between the methods and standards of local police vs those of federal agents.
posted
Remember, only the NRA is protecting your right to own assault weapons and armor-piercing bullets to kill cops.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would rather have the cops overraid and go in tough -and by tough I don't mean shooting- than to go in slow and have cops die. Cops put their lives on the line for the rest of us. I think this country as a whole should respect cops more. THey insure our safety and freedom.
Posts: 832 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
toughness is sitting on a couch and commandeering a "risk-game" of historical relevence phrased in local-yokeliness in the service of lord-knows-what, but...
I get ahead of myself.
Posts: 551 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
aspectre, as a member and recruiter for the NRA, I object to your implication that NRA members support violence against police officers. Not only couldn't that be further from the truth, but many law enforcement officers are members of the NRA. Armor piercing ammunition is only legally available to law enforcement agencies and the armed forces. The NRA only opposed the initial legislation to ban armor piercing bullets because it would have also banned almost all standard rifle ammo as well. When the bill (H.R.3132) was amended (and the NRA was instrumental in that amendment), it passed with the NRA's support.
"Cop-killer" bullets are somewhat of a misnomer, btw. No law enforcement officer has ever been killed by a bullet from a handgun when he or she was properly wearing the appropriate protection. Most law enforcement officers are killed or injured by .22 calibur bullets because they ricochet inside the body and cause more damage.
Please take a look at the NRA web site for more information: www.nra.orgPosts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mrs. M can I say I'm just glad to have you here to set the record straight anytime anything gets brought up about the NRA. I would say that many, many people believe as aspectre does - that the NRA opposed the legislation and have no idea the NRA supported it with the amendment.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, well - not all members of the NRA are quite as sensible. The infamous "jack booted thugs" comment leaps to mind.
On a completely unrelated note, Mrs. M - do you have any information on the certifications the NRA offers? I tried combing through the website and didn't have much luck.
posted
My point was that it's a bad idea to surprise an armed person at night--because he or she doesn't KNOW that you're a police officer. Even in the daytime things can be confusing. I'm talking about regular people, here, who might have committed some minor offense--or not, and their doors are busted down.
We both have high respect for police officers, but we expect the same respect in return. Bust into my house--expect to pay the consequences. It may cost our lives, but we'll go down fighting. Point is: We don't know WHO you are. (you being whoever did the door kicking.) Knock politely, and you can arrest whoever you want--Properly and legally. Then we can fight in court as the situation warrants.
But I'm NOT talking about the type of situations mentioned here, especially what Belle was talking about. Those people were warned--and they killed police officers before they even entered the house. It's clear to me that's NOT the same sort of situation at all.
quote:But I'm NOT talking about the type of situations mentioned here, especially what Belle was talking about. Those people were warned--and they killed police officers before they even entered the house. It's clear to me that's NOT the same sort of situation at all.
quote:No individual has the right to break down my door or burst into my house armed or otherwise; therefore, no policeman does either. If that ever happens at our house, expect a similar headline.
No. If I break the law and they wish to arrest me or someone at my home, they may knock on the door and it will all come to a civil, peaceful conclusion.
If they have a warrant for search or seizure, they may knock at the door and present the warrant.
Only if I or someone at my home is holding someone hostage or firing guns from the windows may they burst in.
You've said some contradictory things here.
The quotes you showed said remarkably different things than you're saying now, too (and they're silly, because we as a society give police power over us coupled with responsibilities.)
You've got a lot of balls insisting that police politely knock on the doors of 'minor criminals', since police don't do that anyway. They don't use the battering ram and come in with tear-gas and guns against jaywalkers and check-bouncers, they do it against serious criminals.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You've got a lot of balls insisting that police politely knock on the doors of 'minor criminals', since police don't do that anyway. They don't use the battering ram and come in with tear-gas and guns against jaywalkers and check-bouncers, they do it against serious criminals.
Like those damn dirty marijuana dealers. Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you’re a breeder you need to know the merits so that you can get these poodles together, else you’ll be going out of business and be stuck with a loud ankle bitter.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahem. Permit me to rephrase - "Is sexual intercourse between humans and poodles always wrong? Discuss." Find people to seriously argue both sides and then I'll agree with you.
@Xav - yes, well. I'm not that sympathetic as they were dealing in a controlled substance for personal gain.
posted
I don't think the law makes a distinction between selling or giving away... and if you have over a certain amount of illegal substances, they automatically give you a dealing charge. So it's not like it's a given that dealing is what's going on.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "intent to distribute" clause. Depending on who they were giving it away to, assuming they were, I might be more sympathetic. But not all that much.
And on a completely unrelated note, damn - it's raining sideways in Atlanta.
Which is quite a sight when you're on the 8th floor and everything is obscured by mist and rain.
posted
About 7 or 8 years ago I heard of a similar story in Southern California. (probably an urban legend, but for the sake of discussion, lets say it happened)
The police come in and start taking over the home, shouting and brandishing weapons. The home owner panics and begins to shoot at theofficers. Gone from sound asleep to defence mode in seconds. Two officers go down, I don't remember if they were killed, but they do shoot and kill the homeowner.
The kicker in the story I heard is that the guy was innocent, they had in fact followed a bad lead and entered the wrong house.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think some sentiments expressed here are part of a growing culture in the US that vilifies policemen, soldiers and other enforcers and it disturbs me.
A policemans job is even more thankless than a soldiers. Consider the fear that exists in the heart of a man, who has chosen service to his community as his profession, as he serves a legal warrant, meeting only the obfuscation, lies and threatening anger. He gets backup and comes back to do his job, a job that citizens of his community pay him to do and is met with a cold hearted ambush and death. And the question here is whether or not he should have been serving a warrant? That's legal everywhere.
It's like the case where a guy is running from policemen and charges them with his very large and deadly SUV. Every cop on the seen choses the life of himself and his fellow officer over that of thier attacker and fires, most emptying thier clip into the vehicle.
Most of the coverage of the event didn't cover that they were trying to capture a dangerous criminal or that individually they fared no more than nine to fifteen shots. The coverage stated the total amount of combined weapons discharge to shock people that the cops had to shoot 50+ times to stop this guy, with the purpose of questioning thier motives and the necessity of the force.
How many good policemen have to die to save the life of deperate criminals?
As far as I am concerned hundreds of bullets are warranted in such a situation. Our protectors as flawed and human as they may be deserve alot of respect just for taking the job. It's life threatening everyday and declaring them unfit from the comfort of homes made safe by the exact same community is ignorant and ungrateful.
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think some sentiments expressed here are part of a growing culture in the US that vilifies policemen, soldiers and other enforcers and it disturbs me.
That's funny, I sense a growing culture in the US that deifies policemen and soldiers and it disturbs me.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
