• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

cpwill said:
if you burst into my house waving a gun, then i haven't seen any badge, i have no idea who you are or what you are after, i have a wife and two little children to protect, and all i see is that you are a mortal threat.


sorry to do it because many of my friends are cops, and i think we as a society don't allow them near enough chance to do their jobs effectively and protect themselves. but you can buy a shirt that reads "police" anywhere.


If you have a warrant, surround the house, come up and knock, and present your identification and your warrant. I will probably seethe quietly, but I'll help you as much as I can to get you off my property and out of my house.

But come in waving a weapon, and one of us is dead.
Click to expand...

This situation you're discussing rarely happens - usually, whne a cop is present at a scene of a disturbance, there's no reason to suspect he hit up the local costume mart and also bought a cop car while he was on his way out.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
This situation you're discussing rarely happens - usually, whne a cop is present at a scene of a disturbance, there's no reason to suspect he hit up the local costume mart and also bought a cop car while he was on his way out.
Click to expand...

if i see a cop car with lights pulling up that is one thing - but we are talking about a forced-entry here, not a slowly-developing situation where I as a homeowner have all of the information I need to make the best decision. The only information they have allowed me to have in that situation is that my family is under percieved mortal threat from large men waving guns and yelling at everyone to obey them.

:sorry: but if you want to hit my house, it is incumbent upon you to make sure I know that you are there representing the state. otherwise I will react in a way that both you and I will later regret. because in an actual home invasion you have Very Little time to take back the initiative before you are tied up and watching your wife get raped. and I'm not giving you that time.
 
Kernel Sanders said:
I don't see how the alternative would be feasible. "Unlawful entry" is something that has to be decided by the courts, not a civilian on the spot. If you think the police are acting improperly you have to seek remedy through the courts, not by assaulting a police officer. I just don't see how it can work otherwise, every asshole who wants to resist arrest could just claim he thought the cops were acting unlawfully.
Click to expand...
When an officer doesn't have a warrant, I would think that would be a pretty obvious indicator.

My question is, does this law prevent someone from simply locking the door and not permitting the officer inside?
 
cpwill said:
indeed. this is one of those "choose whom ye shall serve" issues.
Click to expand...
It is or it will be considering the current path we are traveling down, I just hope to God that this will never be required. I see far to many people so willing to give up their freedoms without a fight all in the name of security. To be free has it's inherited risks and with these risk our constitution allows us the tools to defend ourselves.
 
cpwill said:
if i see a cop car with lights pulling up that is one thing - but we are talking about a forced-entry here, not a slowly-developing situation where I as a homeowner have all of the information I need to make the best decision. The only information they have allowed me to have in that situation is that my family is under percieved mortal threat from large men waving guns and yelling at everyone to obey them.

:sorry: but if you want to hit my house, it is incumbent upon you to make sure I know that you are there representing the state. otherwise I will react in a way that both you and I will later regret. because in an actual home invasion you have Very Little time to take back the initiative before you are tied up and watching your wife get raped. and I'm not giving you that time.
Click to expand...

Statisitically speaking - most 'entries' of this nature are a situation that develops and evolve - not just some idiot dude in a uniform randomly charging into people's homes for no reason at all.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Statisitically speaking - most 'entries' of this nature are a situation that develops and evolve - not just some idiot dude in a uniform randomly charging into people's homes for no reason at all.
Click to expand...

Most, but not all. Improper use of government force is abuse of our own power and sovereignty. The government must remember who the true sovereign is.
 
Ikari said:
Most, but not all. Improper use of government force is abuse of our own power and sovereignty. The government must remember who the true sovereign is.
Click to expand...

I've never heard of a situatoin in which a person posed as an officer and forced their way into someone's home (this is his argument, there) - it's unrealistic and farfetched to center a hefty argument around such a bizarre and odd situation.

Lets stay rooted in reality - things taht will actually happen if such things occur.

What's wrong with someone taking acop to court? A cop who violates the law like that can face getting booted out of the force - at least.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I've never heard of a situatoin in which a person posed as an officer and forced their way into someone's home (this is his argument, there) - it's unrealistic and farfetched to center a hefty argument around such a bizarre and odd situation.
Click to expand...

It's happened a lot. When I was in high school there was some dudes going around with lights and everything, dressed as cops, pulling women over and they used it for rape.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Statisitically speaking - most 'entries' of this nature are a situation that develops and evolve - not just some idiot dude in a uniform randomly charging into people's homes for no reason at all.
Click to expand...

it's not "no reason at all" - it is a bad intention and one i have no intention of allowing him to meet. and really, i couldn't care less. come into my house and threaten me without properly identifying yourself and all i can do is take you at your word and respond accordingly.
 
cpwill said:
it's not "no reason at all" - it is a bad intention and one i have no intention of allowing him to meet. and really, i couldn't care less. come into my house and threaten me without properly identifying yourself and all i can do is take you at your word and respond accordingly.
Click to expand...

In the situation you've descrbed in several of your posts here, I am confident that you would not be convicted -- though probably prosecuted. I could see myself saying, "Rather safe and sorry than dead." Judged by 12/carried by 6.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
What's wrong with someone taking acop to court? A cop who violates the law like that can face getting booted out of the force - at least.
Click to expand...

Yes. I'm sure the possibility of someone getting fired will make this guy feel much better.

A Cheshire, Conn., police captain today defended the department's response at the scene of a home invasion that ended with the torture, rape and killing of Jennifer Hawke-Petit, and her two daughters, Hayley, 17, and Michaela,11, in 2007.

Capt. Robert Vignola acknowledged that a half-hour passed between the time police first learned of the break-in, and the time they saw the two accused murderers, Steven Hayes, 47, and Joshua Komisarjevsky, 30, run out of the house, get into the Petit's car, and try to escape. It was only then that police noticed the house was on fire...

Vignola's testimony came after jurors listened to a recording of a 911 call, made by the manager at the Bank of America branch in Cheshire, where Hawke-Petiti had gone to withdraw $15,000 in hopes of placating her assailants.

"We have a lady who is in our bank right now who says that her husband and children are being held at their house," the manager told a 911 operator during the July 2007 incident. "The people are in a car outside the bank. She is getting $15,000 to bring out to them. [She says] that if the police are told that they will kill the children and the husband...

Hawke-Petit may have believed her abductors would let her go, but they are accused of taking her home where she was sexually assaulted and killed. They also tied up and assaulted her husband, Dr. William Petit, a prominent Connecticut doctor.

Hayes, is accused of sexually assaulting and strangling Hawke-Petit. Komisarjevsky, who is awaiting trial, is charged with sexually assaulting Michaela...

On Wednesday, Dr. Petit, the sole survivor, sobbed as jurors in New Haven Superior Court saw graphic photos of his daughters' bodies. A juror also cried as the evidence was passed among jurors, The Associated Press reported...

After describing a pleasant Sunday leading up to the killings, Dr. Petit testified Tuesday that he was beaten in his sleep and woke up around 3 a.m. face-to-face with Hayes and Komisarjevsky.

"I remember I awoke in a daze thinking or feeling ow, ow, ow," he testified. "Something warm was running down the front of my face. ... I saw two people standing in front of the sofa. ...

Petit said the men bound his wrists and ankles with rope and plastic ties, and covered his face, then took him down to the basement, where they tied him to a pole. He said he went in and out of consciousness. Upstairs were Hawke-Petit and the couple's two daughters.

"I heard moaning and thumps. I may have yelled out, 'Hey!' Then he said he heard someone upstairs say, 'You are alright, don't worry it's going to be all over in a couple minutes.' It was a different tone, it was much more sinister," he testified..

In court Wednesday, Hayes' public defender, Thomas Ullman, asked Cheshire police Capt. Robert Vignola why it took police 33 minutes from the 911 call to determine at least one person was in distress inside the house.

Police said they followed standard hostage procedure by not going in until the suspects fled. But Vignola admitted that no attempt was made even to contact the family.

"No phone call was made from any police officer to the home?" the defense asked him in court.

"That's correct," he responded
Click to expand...


when the guy tried to get back in the house to rescue his wife and daughters - after it was on ****ing Fire the police tackled and tied HIM up. The police cannot protect you, and armed men can invade your house.

He's a better man than I. I would not have responded rationally to that.

but I'm sure he feels much better with the idea that maybe he can sue.


this is why the 2nd Amendment is important.
 
Last edited:
the woman was an idiot going back with the kidnappers

the father should be given a blowtorch a crowbar and "the pear of agony" and 2 hours with those mopes and a full pardoned after he gets done

I don't believe in state sponsored execution all the much but I would have no problem with the father wreaking soul withering horrors on those two mopes

but yeah the cops screwed up big time

sadly the father cannot sue that incompetent bunch of stooges
 
MaggieD said:
In the situation you've descrbed in several of your posts here, I am confident that you would not be convicted
Click to expand...

i am confident I would never make it to trial. Cops respond badly to people shooting at them, and with good reason. That's why this is such an issue - the police are putting people in a lose-lose situation.
 
cpwill said:
Yes. I'm sure the possibility of someone getting fired will make this guy feel much better.




when the guy tried to get back in the house to rescue his wife and daughters - after it was on ****ing Fire the police tackled and tied HIM up. The police cannot protect you, and armed men can invade your house.

He's a better man than I. I would not have responded rationally to that.

but I'm sure he feels much better with the idea that maybe he can sue.


this is why the 2nd Amendment is important.
Click to expand...

So - in this situation everything led to court.

Which is the appropriate and rightful thing to do *no matter what* because that's where bad people are convicted of the wrongs they have done - yes?

I see nothing wrong with preferring to take things to court instead of risking getting your head blown off over a domestic scuffle.

And if someone's posing as a cop then you have ever right to defend yourself because he's not *really* a cop. *shrug*
 
MaggieD said:
A police officer can enter any property - break down any door - if he has a reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed. If a cop is chasing a suspect, and that suspect enters his home and closes the door, the copper does not have to get a search warrant to break it down. If a cop comes to the front door in response to a 911 call and hears screaming on the other side of the door, he does not have to get a search warrant. If a cop comes to the front door in response to a 911 call, someone answers it and refuses to let them in -- and they hear cries for help in the background, the copper does not have to get a warrant to enter a home. There are many exceptions.

And this state supreme court ruling simply says you can't shoot a police officer (or whatever)for trespassing even if entry later proves to be illegal. You may be able to sue him and his jurisdiction, but ya' can't shoot 'im. This is just plain common sense. You don't argue with a copper in the street -- you argue with him in court.
Click to expand...
We'll never have a law that like here in Texas. We're all raised to shoot first and ask questions later. We're fixin' to pass an open carry law. That means we can wear gun belts everywhere we go, and slap leather whenever we feel like it. The Cops are much more careful to get the right address around here.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
So - in this situation everything led to court.
Click to expand...

actually from what i understand it looks like the guy isn't going to be able to sue at all. the cops tied him up and made him watch his wife and little girls burn - and there's not **** he can do. because cops are inviolate.

Which is the appropriate and rightful thing to do *no matter what* because that's where bad people are convicted of the wrongs they have done - yes?
Click to expand...

no. sending people to court because they have beaten, raped, and murdered a mother and two young daughtres is not what we want to have happen. what we want to have happen is for those innocents not to lose their life in the first place.

I see nothing wrong with preferring to take things to court instead of risking getting your head blown off over a domestic scuffle.
Click to expand...

much rather risk having my head blown off than risk having my family go through that.

And if someone's posing as a cop then you have ever right to defend yourself because he's not *really* a cop. *shrug*
Click to expand...

and how am i supposed to tell the difference in the half-second i have to make a decision when someone breaks through my door?
 
Last edited:
Mickey Shane said:
We'll never have a law that like here in Texas. We're all raised to shoot first and ask questions later. We're fixin' to pass an open carry law. That means we can wear gun belts everywhere we go, and slap leather whenever we feel like it. The Cops are much more careful to get the right address around here.
Click to expand...

If ever I left my beloved "bama - Texas is where I would go. for that and several other reasons.
 
I would generally agree that it isn't lawful to shoot an officer for conducting what you think is unlawful search. It means little to have the judge make the call after the fact if someone is already dead. However, non-violent forms of resistance should be allowed, on the condition that if the search is later upheld to be lawful, the suspect faces additional penalties.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Do not fight cops in the street. You will never, ever win and even if they're wrong you'll be lucky if they even pay your hospital bills. The only weapon you can beat a cop with is a lawyer.
Click to expand...

That, pretty much.

The best thing to do is comply with the cop, then call an attorney afterward and seek redress through the legal system. Seriously, nothing good comes of fighting the police if it can possibly be avoided.

The only thing that bothers me is the case (and this does actually happen, more often than people like to talk about) of a dynamic entry by a SWAT team or a felony-warrant-service team... where they've actually gotten the wrong house. If the homeowner may mistakenly think he is being subjected to a criminal home invasion and attempt to defend his home... and might even manage to wound or kill someone. There have been well-publicized cases where criminals engaging in home invasions have entered shouting "Police!" and even sometimes wearing clothing with "POLICE" stenciled on.

I don't know of a case offhand where a wrongly-targeted homeowner has shot it out with a police team, mistakenly thinking they were criminals, but it could happen and it is a nightmarish scenario. If it is a case of the cops being at the wrong house, the homeowner (if he survives) should certainly be protected from criminal charges for defending his home against an illegitimate police entry that should never have happened. He or his heirs should be able to seek substantial recompense.

Regardless of any generalized right-to-privacy, the Fourth Amendment is pretty explicit: The right to be secure in our homes, papers and personal effects against unreasonable search and seizure, except where warrants have been issued specifically naming what/who is to be seized.
 
There are different levels of this:

Reasonable Suspicion: I observe something that leads me to believe a crime MAY have been committed. I can knock on the door, ask questions, observe and listen to see if I can gather more data... I can even ASK if can come in and look around... but I can't just barge in.

Probable Cause: I observe something that is considered adequate cause to believe a crime HAS been committed. If I see someone enter a house via a broken window, I have probable cause to believe he's committing B and E. If I observe that someone is packing a gun, I have probable cause to check and see if he is doing so legally.

Probable cause is usually required to enter a home without a warrant. Reasonable suspicion is inadequate.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
There are different levels of this:

Reasonable Suspicion: I observe something that leads me to believe a crime MAY have been committed. I can knock on the door, ask questions, observe and listen to see if I can gather more data... I can even ASK if can come in and look around... but I can't just barge in.

Probable Cause: I observe something that is considered adequate cause to believe a crime HAS been committed. If I see someone enter a house via a broken window, I have probable cause to believe he's committing B and E. If I observe that someone is packing a gun, I have probable cause to check and see if he is doing so legally.

Probable cause is usually required to enter a home without a warrant. Reasonable suspicion is inadequate.
Click to expand...

yep and having argued before the court of appeals on an issue involving a warrantless search you are correct.
 
Somebody should remind those "justices" and "law-enforcement" that this is why we have the Second Amendment.
 
If police were to forcibly enter my home without a warrant, I would simply dial 911 and report them on the record. If police suspect that I'm harboring a fugitive, or have pot plants in a bedroom, or a meth lab in my basement, and they don't bother with the warrant, then I'm getting a nice settlement at the end of the day, because anything they find is inadmissable. Without a warrant or legitimate probable cause, police must ask for permission to enter your residence. If they fake it... "Say, did you just hear someone scream?" when the cat meows, for example... my settlement will be even fatter! :lol:

For the most part, police do not deliberately conduct themselves in a manner that will get them sued or result in the case being thrown out of court. The problems occur when mistakes happen... SWAT simultaneously yells "Police! Search Warrant!" as the battering ram knocks down the door and a gaggle of riot-clad officers rush into the wrong home in the middle of the night. That has led to serious tragedy when the sleeping homeowner, awakened by the door being broken down, grabs a weapon and rushes out of the bedroom. Somebody is going to die, and it's not likely to be one of the police officers.
 
X Factor said:
A little more from the article;

*
Click to expand...

This is all great, but it costs YOU lots of money to take the police to court and to pay bail and other related things. So you are injured many times before the police officer is reprimanded (if at all) for disturbing your peace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom