|
I can't really argue with your reasoning. I just don't want to suggest that are cops are wretched human beings.I'm not saying that all people that become cops are inherently wretched people. A lot of them are, they become cops because they wanna power trip. But there are cops that go into their jobs believing the hype, that they're there to protect and serve the people. The problem is that power corrupts, period. All my friends that have become cops have either quit the force within a few months in disgust, realizing their brainwashed folly, or they ended up telling some story at the bar later about how they rolled some hapless sap for some b%%&&&%$ reason, and being proud of it. People that were my friends, decent human beings just looking to help their fellow humans, bragging about how they screwed some guy just so they could have a power trip. Needless to say, I tell them how disgusting of a human being I see in front of me now, and break off the friendship.
Basically, it's not that cops, as human beings are wretched. They're just human beings, like me and you, subject to faults and mistakes. It's the job that's wretched.
So the police that go agianst armed men are just thugs?
The ones that hunt down rapist and child molesters just power tripping?Dude, you sound like the type that WANTS to do the things that gets you involved with the wrong end of the law. MOST police are men doing a job, a thankless and dangerous job. some turn bad, but you see that everywhere as it is human nature. Some would risk their lives to save a whiny cop hater from a hostage situation or kidnaping, or bust their ass trying to bring justice to anyone that hurt even someone like you. But that is ok, you can hate them for having authority, hate them for the actions of a few. most will still do their job and risk death or worse every day so you are a little safer.
What i am saying is always comply with the officers. He says im comming in, don't try to slam the door in his face. He says get on the ground, do it as fast as you can. Go to his superiors or the courts later but do NOT fight the officer or he WILL win. No matter how wrong the cop might be, if you fight back his superior training or superior numbers when backup is called will win and even if he is later found guilty of abuse it will not mend injuries or raise the dead.Does anybody seriously think they CAN DEFEND agianst the cops walking in? you might have a court case after the fact but if you try to physically fight back you are stupid and dead. The gov will win every fight right or wrong, ask waco or ruby ridge folks......You make a fine point, but what constitutes "resistance"? If you take no violent action and just close the door and say, "No you may not enter because you don't have a warrant, or exigent circumstances." should you be presumed guilty until you can prove otherwise in court? I'm not saying this is your position, but it seems to be the predictable outcome of this ruling if it stands on appeal.
I take it you agree with the court's ruling then?
|
|
I take it you agree with the court's ruling then?What i am saying is always comply with the officers. He says im comming in, don't try to slam the door in his face. He says get on the ground, do it as fast as you can. Go to his superiors or the courts later but do NOT fight the officer or he WILL win. No matter how wrong the cop might be, if you fight back his superior training or superior numbers when backup is called will win and even if he is later found guilty of abuse it will not mend injuries or raise the dead.Does anybody seriously think they CAN DEFEND agianst the cops walking in? you might have a court case after the fact but if you try to physically fight back you are stupid and dead. The gov will win every fight right or wrong, ask waco or ruby ridge folks......You make a fine point, but what constitutes "resistance"? If you take no violent action and just close the door and say, "No you may not enter because you don't have a warrant, or exigent circumstances." should you be presumed guilty until you can prove otherwise in court? I'm not saying this is your position, but it seems to be the predictable outcome of this ruling if it stands on appeal.
No, it is wrong but you still cannot fight them and win. Kinda like being a hostage is wrong but you don't piss off the kidnappers.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I certainly hope that this ruling doesn't apply to undercover police officers who don't announce they are police when they enter your home.I'm not sure I follow.
Guess I was too brief while posting at work. What I was getting at is that I hope the ruling doesn't make it illegal if an undercover police officer (or out of uniform for that matter) breaks into your home, doesn't in any way announce that they're the police, and you resist their entry. It's one thing to say if the police enter your home and announce that they are the police that you cannot legaly resist, but if the mere fact that they're police and don't tell you causes you to break the law when you try to resist, that's even more crazy than the case initially sounds.
|
|
It's times like these when I turn to the Anti Federalist Papers for some wisdom.
The new plan, it is true, does propose to secure the people of the benefit of personal liberty by the habeas corpus; and trial by jury for all crimes, except in case of impeachment: but there is no declaration, that all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own consciences and understanding; and that no man ought, or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to, or against his own free will and consent; and that no authority can or ought to be vested in, or assumed by any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner controul, the right of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship: that the trial by jury in civil causes as well as criminal, and the modes prescribed by the common law for safety of life in criminal prosecutions shall be held sacred; that the requiring of excessive bail, imposing of excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishments be forbidden; that monopolies in trade or arts, other than to authors of books or inventors of useful arts, for a reasonable time, ought not to be suffered; that the right of the people to assemble peaceably for the purpose of consulting about public matters, and petitioning or remonstrating to the federal legislature ought not to be prevented; that the liberty of the press be held sacred; that the people have a right to hold themselves, their houses, papers and possessions free from search or seizure; and that therefore warrants without oaths or affirmations first made, affording a sufficient foundation for them, and whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded or required to search suspected places, or to seize any person or his property, not particularly described, are contrary to that right and ought not to be granted; and that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be permitted but when absolutely necessary; all which is omitted to be done in the proposed government.
Guess I was too brief while posting at work. What I was getting at is that I hope the ruling doesn't make it illegal if an undercover police officer (or out of uniform for that matter) breaks into your home, doesn't in any way announce that they're the police, and you resist their entry. It's one thing to say if the police enter your home and announce that they are the police that you cannot legaly resist, but if the mere fact that they're police and don't tell you causes you to break the law when you try to resist, that's even more crazy than the case initially sounds.I certainly hope that this ruling doesn't apply to undercover police officers who don't announce they are police when they enter your home.I'm not sure I follow.
My understanding is that there are no exceptions. As I understand it, in your scenario the home owner is guilty of resisting even though the UC clearly broke the law. The home owner can go to prison.
It's times like these when I turn to the Anti Federalist Papers for some wisdom.
...
The new plan, it is true, does propose to secure the people of the benefit of personal liberty by the habeas corpus; and trial by jury for all crimes, except in case of impeachment: but there is no declaration, that all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own consciences and understanding; and that no man ought, or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to, or against his own free will and consent; and that no authority can or ought to be vested in, or assumed by any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner controul, the right of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship: that the trial by jury in civil causes as well as criminal, and the modes prescribed by the common law for safety of life in criminal prosecutions shall be held sacred; that the requiring of excessive bail, imposing of excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishments be forbidden; that monopolies in trade or arts, other than to authors of books or inventors of useful arts, for a reasonable time, ought not to be suffered; that the right of the people to assemble peaceably for the purpose of consulting about public matters, and petitioning or remonstrating to the federal legislature ought not to be prevented; that the liberty of the press be held sacred; that the people have a right to hold themselves, their houses, papers and possessions free from search or seizure; and that therefore warrants without oaths or affirmations first made, affording a sufficient foundation for them, and whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded or required to search suspected places, or to seize any person or his property, not particularly described, are contrary to that right and ought not to be granted; and that standing armies in time of peace are
It's truly amazing how prescient the Anti Federalists were. At least they got us the Bill of Rights even if we don't use it much any more.
I agree with you and disagree with you. The job is wretched. You deal with the worst that humanity has to offer. You deal with people lieing to constantly like you are a idiot. You deal with the crack Mom who lets her kid starve to death so she can get high...etc. Plus you have to deal with the corrupt cops.Pretty much what you get is that the people who actualy would make good cops either quite...become numb and just don't care anymore or corrupt themselves.
Expected to go out on a regular basis and get shot at, yelled at, cussed out over trying to slow someone down (you don't really need to go 70 in a 35 zone people), dealing with drunk drivers (I was only tipsy and the cops had it out for me I swear!), and you aren't paid jack for what you do -- and to top it off everyone is constantly harping at you for making too much and wasting their money -- nevermind what they are doing to your life (family, social, and otherwise), peace of mind, and capability to actually do the job they asked of you.
No, it is wrong but you still cannot fight them and win. Kinda like being a hostage is wrong but you don't piss off the kidnappers.I take it you agree with the court's ruling then?What i am saying is always comply with the officers. He says im comming in, don't try to slam the door in his face. He says get on the ground, do it as fast as you can. Go to his superiors or the courts later but do NOT fight the officer or he WILL win. No matter how wrong the cop might be, if you fight back his superior training or superior numbers when backup is called will win and even if he is later found guilty of abuse it will not mend injuries or raise the dead.Does anybody seriously think they CAN DEFEND agianst the cops walking in? you might have a court case after the fact but if you try to physically fight back you are stupid and dead. The gov will win every fight right or wrong, ask waco or ruby ridge folks......You make a fine point, but what constitutes "resistance"? If you take no violent action and just close the door and say, "No you may not enter because you don't have a warrant, or exigent circumstances." should you be presumed guilty until you can prove otherwise in court? I'm not saying this is your position, but it seems to be the predictable outcome of this ruling if it stands on appeal.
Your analogy is flawed. It would be more like being a hostage, pissing off the kidnappers, then being arrested for pissing off the kidnappers.
Expected to go out on a regular basis and get shot at, yelled at, cussed out over trying to slow someone down (you don't really need to go 70 in a 35 zone people), dealing with drunk drivers (I was only tipsy and the cops had it out for me I swear!), and you aren't paid jack for what you do -- and to top it off everyone is constantly harping at you for making too much and wasting their money -- nevermind what they are doing to your life (family, social, and otherwise), peace of mind, and capability to actually do the job they asked of you.
I agree with you and disagree with you. The job is wretched. You deal with the worst that humanity has to offer. You deal with people lieing to constantly like you are a idiot. You deal with the crack Mom who lets her kid starve to death so she can get high...etc. Plus you have to deal with the corrupt cops.Pretty much what you get is that the people who actualy would make good cops either quite...become numb and just don't care anymore or corrupt themselves.
I do not deny that they have a pretty crappy time with their work. It means I can understand when they break the fourth amendment. However, I do not believe that it makes it right. After all, I believe that it is Alaskan king crab fishermen that have the most dangerous job in the world, but we would never allow them to take away the first amendment if it somehow made their job easier, would we?
Old, but as relevant now as ever
Classic
I do not deny that they have a pretty crappy time with their work. It means I can understand when they break the fourth amendment. However, I do not believe that it makes it right. After all, I believe that it is Alaskan king crab fishermen that have the most dangerous job in the world, but we would never allow them to take away the first amendment if it somehow made their job easier, would we?Expected to go out on a regular basis and get shot at, yelled at, cussed out over trying to slow someone down (you don't really need to go 70 in a 35 zone people), dealing with drunk drivers (I was only tipsy and the cops had it out for me I swear!), and you aren't paid jack for what you do -- and to top it off everyone is constantly harping at you for making too much and wasting their money -- nevermind what they are doing to your life (family, social, and otherwise), peace of mind, and capability to actually do the job they asked of you.
I agree with you and disagree with you. The job is wretched. You deal with the worst that humanity has to offer. You deal with people lieing to constantly like you are a idiot. You deal with the crack Mom who lets her kid starve to death so she can get high...etc. Plus you have to deal with the corrupt cops.Pretty much what you get is that the people who actualy would make good cops either quite...become numb and just don't care anymore or corrupt themselves.
I agree with you 100%...but realizing the crap the go though means we can make their jobs a little easier. For instance anytime I am pulled over for a traffic fine I am very polite...I am very honest...just show them some respect is all.
The police acted appropriately. The officers were led to Kemp's house and had reason to search it. Even the article states as much. Kemp was obstructing justice. Did he deserve to die? No.
Wow. You really believe that don't you? Did we read the same article?
"Lawyer and Firko knocked on the door, no one answered. Lawyer, according to the indictment, looked in a front window with a flashlight and saw the person who was described as the driver of the truck inside the house. He was identified later as Kemp.
Troopers say they identified themselves as law enforcement and demanded he speak with them. Lawyer went to the back door to attempt contact and Firko tried the front door handle. The door was unlocked so Firko opened it. The indictment says Kemp tried to close the door on Firko, but had to open it again to grab his dog and Firko was unable to catch Kemp at that time.
Lawyer went back to the front door, the indictment says. He and Firko kicked at it, breaking the frame. Lawyer wedged a piece of the door frame on the threshold so it couldn't be fully closed. Both troopers kept kicking at the door and Kemp kept it closed with his body. He was, according to the indictment, yelling at the officers they couldn't enter the home and had no warrant to do so. He also told them to leave.
The Troopers kept trying to enter the home hoping to arrest Kemp on DUI, failure to report an accident and other charges. Both believed they needed to get him under arrest quickly so the chemical tests needed to prove he was intoxicated, could be performed.
According to the indictment Firko noticed the two other people, Anthony Martinez and Ian Olson, leaving the home from the back door. Firko tried to detain them while Lawyer continued kicking at the front door to reach Kemp. Lawyer went briefly to help Firko with Martinez and Olson.
The indictment says Lawyer worried he'd left Kemp alone long enough for him to grab a weapon. He went back to the front door where Kemp was still barricading it with his body. Lawyer drew his gun, stepped back from the door and kicked it again. This time, it swung open and Lawyer saw Kemp in a darkened room standing next to the door. Lawyer says in the indictment Kemp lifted and extended his arm upward as if he was pointing a gun at him but couldn't see his hands.
The indictment says Lawyer "saw a flash, and believed he, himself, had been shot by Jason Kemp." Lawyer realized he had actually fired a shot at Kemp, hitting him in the chest. The indictment says once he realized this he began CPR on Kemp but was unable to save him. No weapon was found anywhere near Kemp's body."
Your analogy is flawed. It would be more like being a hostage, pissing off the kidnappers, then being arrested for pissing off the kidnappers.No, it is wrong but you still cannot fight them and win. Kinda like being a hostage is wrong but you don't piss off the kidnappers.I take it you agree with the court's ruling then?What i am saying is always comply with the officers. He says im comming in, don't try to slam the door in his face. He says get on the ground, do it as fast as you can. Go to his superiors or the courts later but do NOT fight the officer or he WILL win. No matter how wrong the cop might be, if you fight back his superior training or superior numbers when backup is called will win and even if he is later found guilty of abuse it will not mend injuries or raise the dead.Does anybody seriously think they CAN DEFEND agianst the cops walking in? you might have a court case after the fact but if you try to physically fight back you are stupid and dead. The gov will win every fight right or wrong, ask waco or ruby ridge folks......You make a fine point, but what constitutes "resistance"? If you take no violent action and just close the door and say, "No you may not enter because you don't have a warrant, or exigent circumstances." should you be presumed guilty until you can prove otherwise in court? I'm not saying this is your position, but it seems to be the predictable outcome of this ruling if it stands on appeal.
+1. Always state when an officer is violating the 4th. I keep a small mp3 player by the door with fresh batteries in it, ready to record just in case.
The police acted appropriately. The officers were led to Kemp's house and had reason to search it. Even the article states as much. Kemp was obstructing justice. Did he deserve to die? No.
firmly disagree. He stated that they should come back with a warrant, and that is what they should have done.
I dont know how much this has to do with influencing the Indiana ruling but I thought I'd post this anyway since it may be a little relevant.
I dont know how much this has to do with influencing the Indiana ruling but I thought I'd post this anyway since it may be a little relevant.
Now they're trampling over my God-given right to flush my stash?!?
Wow. You really believe that don't you? Did we read the same article?Yes we did read the same article and yes I do believe it.
And from your own article:
"Lawyer and Firko knocked on the door, no one answered. Lawyer, according to the indictment, looked in a front window with a flashlight and saw the person who was described as the driver of the truck inside the house. He was identified later as Kemp.
All he had to do was talk to the officers. He resisted. Had he complied, he might have done some time for the charges or more probable would have paid fines and damages. He was also trying to destroy evidence by sleeping off whatever he was on. Had he hit and seriously injured someone you guys would be screaming a different tune.
They were conducting a REASONABLE search. Witnesses pointed out where the three men went to the cops. From some of the other articles, Kemp was out on parole. He also had a history of violence (assault, domestic violence, etc...).
Did he deserve to die? No. But given more information, they acted accordingly.
Technically, They are supposed to need reasonable cause AND a search warrant, unless an emergency was occurring. Letting a guy possibly get off on a DUI doesnt sound like an emergency to me. You say that all he had to do was talk to the officers. I say all the officers had to do was get a warrant.
Edit-As to whether if he had hit or seriously injured someone, I would not sing a different tune. They should still have had to get a warrant to enter his home. So what if he would have time to sleep off whatever he was on. If he hit someone, he'd be facing alot more than a DUI. As you pointed out, there were eyewitnesses as well as evidence- IE vehicle registration etc. I dont get what the hurry to get at him was about, as it seems that he was posing no immediate danger to anyone.
Maybe I get myself finally to writing down the near future stories in which (amongst the many other events) United States splinter into loose coalition of states after corrupted, corporate-lobbied government loses control and finally falls after military massively refuses to obey illegal presidential orders to brutally pacify and subdue citizens fighting for their rights.
Maybe I get myself finally to writing down the near future stories in which (amongst the many other events) United States splinter into loose coalition of states after corrupted, corporate-lobbied government loses control and finally falls after military massively refuses to obey illegal presidential orders to brutally pacify and subdue citizens fighting for their rights.
You mean rewrite the cyberpunk genre again?
Not much cyber-. And -punk only in the sense of evil corporations being present albeit not omnipotent. Just one of the generic ideas for stories to be writen someday.