|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 14, 2011, 09:28 AM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 7, 2010
Location: Northern, UT
Posts: 1,162
|
So, it's ok to resist some home invasions, but not others.
__________________
Cheers, Greg “At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.” — P.J. O’Rourke |
May 14, 2011, 09:32 AM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 25, 2009
Posts: 566
|
If this is how the government "protects" its citizens, i think i would feel safer without its comforting arms.
It was mentioned earlier that the right to resist unlawful assault by a LEO dates back to the Magna Carta; this was merely the first time the right was written about; the right dates back the creation of the first authority. As i've seen and said before, "Legal does not always equal right, and right doesn't always equal legal". |
May 14, 2011, 10:34 AM | #28 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
While I understand the need for doctrines such as hot pursuit and exigent circumstances, and it looks like the girlfriend in this case was at least advising the defendant to "let them in," I do think that the wording of this case opens the door way too wide. The Indiana Supreme Court seems to think its citizens should always let the police in and then fight about it in court, where the officers can take advantage of things like qualified immunity. While I don't think resisting officers is a good idea, I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop: no right to refuse them entry.
Last edited by Spats McGee; May 14, 2011 at 10:40 AM. |
May 14, 2011, 10:51 AM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 26, 2011
Location: alabama
Posts: 537
|
That's is very true glenn however the only problem with that is its a road that leads toward civilians being unable to protect themselves and have to solely depend on the government..and that is giving way to much power to the police.....they may or may not exploit it but I would rather my privacy and protection not rest in the hands of the government but my own...and the thought of that I will admit is a little scary..and I believe that thomas jefferson once said that when the government fears the people there is liberty and when the people fear the government it is tyranny...someone around here has that on there signature ...just cannot remember who...would y'all say this is a fair statement?
__________________
Two weapons that was designed by the same man still in use by the us military 100 years later...1911 and m2...is there anything that comes close.....lol annd maybe perhaps a sig sauer p226 tac ops edition.. |
May 14, 2011, 11:22 AM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 5, 2011
Location: here
Posts: 551
|
Quote:
People will hurt themselves and others. People will kill each other. People will kill themselves. If and when this all stops you can be assured that freedom will have vanished from the face of the earth. Every oppressive government starts out trying to protect the people. Our government rarely addressed "the people". It confined itself to the sphere of individual people and their relationship with each other and government. The further we get from that the worse it is.
__________________
"Me fail English? That's un-possible!" --Ralph Wiggum "A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her"-- W.C Fields |
|
May 14, 2011, 12:59 PM | #31 | |
Junior member
Join Date: March 25, 2011
Posts: 463
|
Quote:
In the right and shoot a cop, it can be a long way back up and out of that hole regardless. Here is about a clean a shoot as ever happened, and this guy is catching Hedes over it: http://reason.com/archives/2006/10/0...e-of-cory-maye |
|
May 14, 2011, 03:52 PM | #32 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I was wondering when someone would bring up the Cory Maye case.
|
May 14, 2011, 06:13 PM | #33 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 12, 2009
Location: melrose, fl
Posts: 634
|
Quote:
__________________
Hundreds of years from now, it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind of car I drove... But the world may be different because I did something so bafflingly crazy that my ruins become a tourist attraction. |
|
May 14, 2011, 07:53 PM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
I hadn't heard of Cory Maye until this thread came up. Just read the linked article, then did a google search. Wow.... just, wow.
It will be interesting to see how the new trial goes. Assuming the proper instructions are given the jury this time, and the "medical examiner" from the first trial gets his previous record thrown in his face during cross-examination (the guy once claimed he could tell from a bullet wound that two shooters were holding the gun when it was fired), and that the defense team currently working the case remains on the case, I can't see how the State of Mississippi expects to prevail. Should be educational. |
May 14, 2011, 08:17 PM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,560
|
You in Missisippi now boy...
|
May 14, 2011, 11:15 PM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,135
|
We need to remember that the Indiana court did not strike down a constitutional right. It apparently overturned long-standing common law. The common law is judge-made law and changes from time to time.
Let's also don't confuse what are possible bad facts with bad law. The Cory Maye case may have lots of problems, but it wasn't with the law or statute itself under which he was convicted. He was given an instruction about the mistaken need for self-defense and the jury rejected his argument, perhaps erroneously. As far as I can determine, a person can still exercise self-defense against a police officer if he justifiably believes the officer is going to kill or seriously injure him. It simply does not give a person the right to use force against an officer who might technically be on the property unlawfully, but in good faith. |
May 14, 2011, 11:53 PM | #37 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 25, 2009
Posts: 566
|
Quote:
That case raised many questions around here, mostly about small town law enforcement's competence and such. I await the outcome as do many other Mississippians. This state has had many problerms, but progress is being made, albeit slowly. I personally do not appreciate generally derogatory comments toward my home that don't involve heat or humidity. |
|
May 15, 2011, 12:09 AM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2008
Location: California
Posts: 1,951
|
As a Retired City Cop I think the ruling is pure B.S.
__________________
http://www.armsmaster.net-a.googlepages.com http://s239.photobucket.com/albums/f...aster270/Guns/ Retired LE, M.P., Sr. M.P. Investigator F.B.I. Trained Rangemaster/Firearms Instructor & Armorer, Presently Forensic Document Examiner for D.H.S. |
May 15, 2011, 08:04 AM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,560
|
Orangello
I mean no offence to you or your state. This is a firearms related forum, and a politically subjected thread. The state of Mississippi has a history. No amount of rhetoric, or blather can make this history disapear. I have personal knowledge that things have changed, and it's in no way the Missisippi of the 50's or 60's, not even the Mississippi of the 70's.This incident could have happened in NY state. In fact a similar one did happen. At the time I was working as an electrician in a depressed section of the Bronx. As it happens I was working behind a bulding that backs up to the location and I saw the entire thing happen. A team of police officers hit an apartment looking for a wanted felon. One officer in the back of the bulding crashed through a fire escape window prompting the man laying in bed inside to produce a handgun, and shoot the intruder dead. Officers who entered the apt. door then shot dead the man living in the apartment. He wasnt the guy they was looking for. It happens... It can happen anywhere. Again... My comment " You in Missippi now boy" is, and will be revelent to some people forever. |
May 15, 2011, 08:13 AM | #40 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
Quote:
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth |
|
May 15, 2011, 08:24 AM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
Read this thread and then go back and read the thread about the police in Great Britain.
You worry about a police state, yet in today's Washington Post, the number of police officers in the District of Columbia fell from 4,200 to 3,800 in the last three years and is expected to go to 3,500 in the next 18 months under the mayor's budget plan. However, it was an opinion article written by the chair of the DC Fraternal Order of Police, who naturally was against reducing the number of policemen on the grounds that there is a direct relationship in the number of policemen and the amount of crime.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
May 15, 2011, 09:10 AM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2010
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 2,016
|
Ask Ryan Frederick about police and no-notice entry....
http://www.examiner.com/civil-libert...erreaching-law
__________________
NRA Life Member USN Retired |
May 15, 2011, 10:54 AM | #43 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,433
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now, all of this said, I'm liking this ruling less and less the more I think about it. I'm inclined to agree with Al in that it was much broader than it needed to be. Looking over the details of the case, I'm really not entirely sure that the entry of the police in this circumstance was even illegal. I think I could probably swallow the IN court simply saying that the man's behavior in the situation constituted probable cause to enter more than I can their current ruling. |
|||
May 15, 2011, 12:16 PM | #44 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
WebleyMkV, do a google search for off duty Philadelphia police shooting; happened very recently.
|
May 15, 2011, 12:48 PM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,135
|
Quote:
|
|
May 15, 2011, 01:48 PM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,433
|
Quote:
|
|
May 15, 2011, 01:58 PM | #47 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,414
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
May 15, 2011, 02:08 PM | #48 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,414
|
Quote:
Then add to that that there is a growing trend of home invaders wearing police uniforms and flashing phony badges. What it comes down to is that a uniform doesn't prove anything today. And while I agree with you regarding the intent of a warrant -- the cops are supposed to show you the warrant, allow you to read and understand it, and then allow them to enter -- in what seems to be a majority of instances today the warrant is "served" only after the occupants have been subdued and handcuffed. It ain't s'posed to be that way. Quote:
Here's your link -- it's on this site: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=449445 |
||
May 15, 2011, 02:57 PM | #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,525
|
I think that given the circumstances, the police did have the right to enter. The wife wanted them in and the husband didn't. That should have been the issue for the court. Not whether or not the defendant had a right to resist an unlawful entry.
|
May 15, 2011, 03:24 PM | #50 | |
Junior member
Join Date: March 25, 2011
Posts: 463
|
Martin Luther King perceived the root of the problem in his 1963 "Letter From A Birmingham Jail", in which he admonished the white clergy for it's indifferent to black suffering:
Quote:
We have as a society since found out, of course, that it's not a race thing, but rather a class thing which defines the indifference to the suffering of lower class persons caught up in the judicial system. The majority public opinion remains hit 'em hard, and keep 'em down and out of my space, no matter what. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|