911 officers went to wrong house, one killed after. Who's at fault? (illegal, drugs)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
plus they arrested a woman for some drug charges... for revenge? not sure, it was an illegal "search" by them for showing up at the wrong house (in the wrong city) from a 911 call and not having a search warrant for that particular house
edit: please move, not sure it goes in this subsection, not sure why I put it here
Well, people do have a right to protect themselves, even if its from the police. If they had no warrant to enter, they were essentially trespassers.
I have a feeling they recognized the address mistake but felt they could take advantage of the situation and try to catch these people with some drugs or something else, so they could justify an arrest. The part about them being required to check everyone in the house in a 911 call is completely wrong. We have had police come to my house once by mistake, they say a 911 call had come from here, but it had not. I just spoke with the officers for a minute or two and they left. They didnt even come in the house, but they had never been to my house before, as I am not a known criminal or 'frequent customer'
There was another thread on here awhile back, about police saying they suspected someone of having child porn in their house, as a justification to enter the house, but turns out, it was really about them finding a guy who was wanted on drug charges. They used the 'possible child porn' to enter and search. Of course they went on and on about how many drugs were found, but no mention of any child porn being found, in fact, child porn was never even mentioned again in that incident.
I only quickly looked at the articles. If they announced they were police officers and he fired on them, he could be in trouble, depends. If it was a no-knock raid, he was well within his rights. See this brief summary article below. The second case (John Bad Elk) cited establishes use of lethal force to defend one's civil rights.
*********
".....January 15, 2013
There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.
The first is United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn't, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45) Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.
The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him. Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn't trying to kill you.
Both of these cases are standing law to this day.
The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military application. The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.
I didn't make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did.
The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military application. The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.
I didn't make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did.
This isn't a case where officers had a warrant but hit the wrong house, or where they arbitrarily targeted a house for which they had no probable cause - both of which would be proactive law enforcement efforts, and that changes the fact pattern. This was a reactive case in which several uniformed officers responded to Mr. Motorola (their radio dispatch) who, it turned out, gave them the wrong address. They proceeded in a reactive fashion to a call for help, unaware they were responding to the wrong location for said call for help.
Has someone perhaps a tort against a police department? Perhaps. Depends on the facts of the case (and the facts don't look very strong in this one.)
But the basic concept is, can you shoot a policeman who is, in good faith and using proper judgement, acting to solve a problem to which he or she was dispatched? Nope - and there are several cases that say so. (Not in my office right now and I'm not going to look them up, but the Supremes started handing them down in the 1980s when the Court recognized that even cops - or dispatchers - make mistakes.)
The Chief Judge of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in one of my cases, "First you comply. Then you contest [in court]." Opening fire on a uniformed officer based solely on the premise that you don't know why he or she is in your home acting in an official fashion is no longer justifiable homicide. Not in any jurisdiction I am aware of.
Again - a lawsuit? Again, perhaps. (Turns out the errant cops inadvertently hit a known felon's residence who had a bunch of dope in his house. Go figure.) But can you kill a cop in your house simply because you don't know what 's he's doing? Nope. Not anymore. Hasn't been that way for decades.
Ive never understood the mentality behind 'complying first then contesting in court'. It seems to me its best to sort it out right on the spot, and avoid any arrest, especially if you are totally innocent. Gives law enforcement too much authority overall.
Ive never understood the mentality behind 'complying first then contesting in court'. It seems to me its best to sort it out right on the spot, and avoid any arrest, especially if you are totally innocent. Gives law enforcement too much authority overall.
Because if you fight the police when you are innocent you may acquire some legitimate charges on your way to being "right" and possibly endanger your life and others along the way.
In our society police do not do the judging, and I feel this is good, they do the policing and judges decide. Police do not convict your nor do they declare your innocence so you are arguing with someone that cannot help you.
This isn't a case where officers had a warrant but hit the wrong house, or where they arbitrarily targeted a house for which they had no probable cause - both of which would be proactive law enforcement efforts, and that changes the fact pattern. This was a reactive case in which several uniformed officers responded to Mr. Motorola (their radio dispatch) who, it turned out, gave them the wrong address. They proceeded in a reactive fashion to a call for help, unaware they were responding to the wrong location for said call for help.
Has someone perhaps a tort against a police department? Perhaps. Depends on the facts of the case (and the facts don't look very strong in this one.)
But the basic concept is, can you shoot a policeman who is, in good faith and using proper judgement, acting to solve a problem to which he or she was dispatched? Nope - and there are several cases that say so. (Not in my office right now and I'm not going to look them up, but the Supremes started handing them down in the 1980s when the Court recognized that even cops - or dispatchers - make mistakes.)
The Chief Judge of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in one of my cases, "First you comply. Then you contest [in court]." Opening fire on a uniformed officer based solely on the premise that you don't know why he or she is in your home acting in an official fashion is no longer justifiable homicide. Not in any jurisdiction I am aware of.
Again - a lawsuit? Again, perhaps. (Turns out the errant cops inadvertently hit a known felon's residence who had a bunch of dope in his house. Go figure.) But can you kill a cop in your house simply because you don't know what 's he's doing? Nope. Not anymore. Hasn't been that way for decades.
Because if you fight the police when you are innocent you may acquire some legitimate charges on your way to being "right" and possibly endanger your life and others along the way.
In our society police do not do the judging, and I feel this is good, they do the policing and judges decide. Police do not convict your nor do they declare your innocence so you are arguing with someone that cannot help you.
Well, if police are supposed to ASSUME someone innocent, breaking down doors and dragging people off in handcuffs, BEFORE any court hearing, does not seem like they really are assuming innocence, if anything they are assuming guilt.
This isn't a case where officers had a warrant but hit the wrong house, or where they arbitrarily targeted a house for which they had no probable cause - both of which would be proactive law enforcement efforts, and that changes the fact pattern. This was a reactive case in which several uniformed officers responded to Mr. Motorola (their radio dispatch) who, it turned out, gave them the wrong address. They proceeded in a reactive fashion to a call for help, unaware they were responding to the wrong location for said call for help.
Has someone perhaps a tort against a police department? Perhaps. Depends on the facts of the case (and the facts don't look very strong in this one.)
But the basic concept is, can you shoot a policeman who is, in good faith and using proper judgement, acting to solve a problem to which he or she was dispatched? Nope - and there are several cases that say so. (Not in my office right now and I'm not going to look them up, but the Supremes started handing them down in the 1980s when the Court recognized that even cops - or dispatchers - make mistakes.)
The Chief Judge of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in one of my cases, "First you comply. Then you contest [in court]." Opening fire on a uniformed officer based solely on the premise that you don't know why he or she is in your home acting in an official fashion is no longer justifiable homicide. Not in any jurisdiction I am aware of.
Again - a lawsuit? Again, perhaps. (Turns out the errant cops inadvertently hit a known felon's residence who had a bunch of dope in his house. Go figure.) But can you kill a cop in your house simply because you don't know what 's he's doing? Nope. Not anymore. Hasn't been that way for decades.
You have no way of knowing if they are acting in good faith when they are busting down your door.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
