Yeah, a much better solution to the problem of cops abusing their law enforcement powers would be mandating that cops record their actions while on duty and having very strict laws and penalties for cops who overstep their bounds -- including full blown murder charges and penalties for cops who use lethal force without a legitimate reason identical to those that could be levied on a civilian. Letting people shoot cops who have overstepped their bounds is not the way to go about it.
Andrew, the link you provided would've turned out the same way even with a law as stated in Indiana being in effect. That said, those cops were shot at first and opened fire in response. The main problem with that case is the fact they were allowed to do a no-knock warrant. Those need to go away badly.
If the Redneck druggy was going to fight the cops anyway, there's not much you can do about that but shoot him when the time comes. If he's dim enough to think he can get away with it despite his house being surrounded an enormous loudspeakers repeatedly telling him to come out, he was probably dim enough to try and fight anyway, and the outcome would be mostly the same.
In most cases, the police have no business busting in. "Surround and Starve" would be sufficient in the vast majority of cases. Anyone who tries to hunker down and barricade themselves in is probably crazy anyway.
The law could be better written, but I don't want situations where anyone subject to a "no-knock" or unannounced raid is prosecuted for firing on what appear to be armed intruders. There were like five stories where just this happened over the last year or two on Fark.
Sure, if No-Knocks were outlawed, it'd probably be must less in favor of this law. However, as it stands, this is not the case and more than likely will still be in use. As such, this law greatly increases the danger of executing this horribly dangerous practice.
1. "No-Knocks" are, in 99.9% of cases, bullshit that shouldn't be tolerated.
2. Active duty police officers should have mandatory video/audio recording at all times.
Fully agree on both. No-knocks need to be banned and active duty cops (or other civil servants like social workers, etc., that may often visit houses in the field) should have A/V recording on them at all times while on duty. Even the Indiana law wouldn't be so bad if they got rid of the "reasonably" part. There is just too much leeway there to give people excuses to shoot cops, social workers, etc. If the law had a clause stating that "if the civil officer has A/V evidence that he/she gave proper notice of intent and possession of a warrant before entering, the shooting is not justified."
This does dovetail into the issue as to whether stand your ground laws are a good idea or not, however, as Jason pointed out.
We should also note that the law specifies "reasonable force." Even under Indiana's laws regarding the Castle Doctrine, you're not justified in shooting a cop unless you seriously think the cop intends to maim or kill you. Which, if the police record their actions well, won't happen.
We should also note that the law specifies "reasonable force." Even under Indiana's laws regarding the Castle Doctrine, you're not justified in shooting a cop unless you seriously think the cop intends to maim or kill you. Which, if the police record their actions well, won't happen.
I'll just note, that No-Knock warrants are usually used in conjunction with SWAT teams as the very basis of obtaining a No-Knock requires proof of dangerous behavior or the danger of the suspect eliminating the evidence.
So we get it. You don't like no-knock. That's fine. No-knock is bad and should be banned. It's dangerous for the cops and for potentially innocent bystanders as well. I agree with you 100% on this.
The problem with the Indiana law is that it's the standard stand-your-ground law with a clause specifically aimed at cops and other civil servants. Stand-your-ground laws have generally resulted in more bloodshed as it basically means you're allowed to open fire for the smallest of provocations.
Rym: I'm about equally fearful of law enforcement and criminals (except maybe in states like Arizona and South Carolina, where I'm definitely more fearful of law enforcement due to my ethnic background).
Lou is right. This kind of law is trouble because it gives people incorrect ideas about what the standard of conduct is. The message about "reasonabilty" doesn't filter down to the level it needs, so there is an inaccurate feeling of justification by the shooter. Most people will remember "I can shoot the cop coming into my home," but they won't remember sanctions A through Z that limit circumstances when that applies.
I'm for some stand your ground laws, but I think it's more peoples interpretations of them that is the issue more than the laws themselves. I'm all for being able to defend myself so I don't die, but some people take advantage of it or are just to dumb to know the difference.
I'm for some stand your ground laws, but I think it's more peoples interpretations of them that is the issue more than the laws themselves. I'm all for being able to defend myself so I don't die, but some people take advantage of it or are just to dumb to know the difference.
I'd argue that there are too many people who take advantage of them or who are too dumb to know the difference. Without stand your ground laws, you are still allowed to defend yourself, but you have to at least make an effort to determine if you can escape without bloodshed. Stand your ground laws basically let you shoot first and ask questions later.
It depends. I believe that all stand your ground laws should require a duty to retreat clause, no matter where the attack occurs. However, I think many of you are conflating stand your ground with Castle Doctrine, which applies only to one's home.
Furthermore, as the article I linked to stated, there is a vast power, experience, and state of mind difference between police officers and civilians. If you you hear several men break your door down and enter into your house late at night, unannounced and you shoot them, you either are 1) a hero for shooting robbers/rapists/murders or 2) sentenced to the death for shooting a police officer. However, both of these outcomes depend not upon your actions, but rather on the person you shoot. Expecting the police to understand this concept and announce, openly identify with proper clothing, and respecting a civilian's protection to unreasonable search and seizure (i.e. not storming in with a SWAT team in suburbia) all make shooting a police officer unreasonable.
Laws have never been made on the basis of whether joe blow redneck could understand them or not. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
A duty to retreat clause is pretty much the exact opposite of a stand your ground law. The whole point of a stand your ground law is to no longer require the duty to retreat. Any law authorizing shooting with a duty to retreat is no longer a stand your ground law but a general authorizing force in self defense law.
I agree with you about the power, etc., difference between police officers and civilians. I also disagree with the automatic sentencing to death (or similarly life in prison as I'm in general anti-death penalty anyway) for shooting a police officer. The legal system needs to take any extenuating circumstances into account when investigating incidents such as these. Cops should also be required to do whatever is necessary, including banning no-knocks, to minimize the chances of getting into a situation where an innocent civilian would open fire on them assuming them to be illegal intruders.
While I agree that laws aren't made to be understandable to Joe Blow Redneck, stand your ground laws such as the one in Indiana seem to be tailor made only to benefit Joe Blow Redneck.
Yeah, this is trending on Twitter. I saw "Wawa" in the news and then I really wanted an egg and cheese. Rym, you must go to the Wawa in my stead this weekend and not be confused in the least. Granted, I am often amazed at Wawa. It is the closest thing to a Japanese conbini with technological features that I have seen. A far cry from the bodega. I think if Mitt is genuinely exited about going in the Wawas and pressing buttons, he is acting in a way I can relate to.
Basically, that is all it is. However, I like convenience stores because they remind me of Japan and Wawa is super special because it reminds me of going to the beach in New Jersey.
What makes Wawa so awesome? I always thought it was a slightly classier convenience store.
It's Convenient and compared to all other convenience stories (other then Sheetz) it's food is passable. Plus now their sandwich stand has a ton of awesome options like adding pesto to sandwiches! I heart Pesto.
This seems like a pretty silly thing to criticize Romney about. Like Emily, I can agree with those sentiments, and any cool vending machine technology is a nice reminder of Japan.
Comments
In most cases, the police have no business busting in. "Surround and Starve" would be sufficient in the vast majority of cases. Anyone who tries to hunker down and barricade themselves in is probably crazy anyway.
The law could be better written, but I don't want situations where anyone subject to a "no-knock" or unannounced raid is prosecuted for firing on what appear to be armed intruders. There were like five stories where just this happened over the last year or two on Fark.
1. "No-Knocks" are, in 99.9% of cases, bullshit that shouldn't be tolerated.
2. Active duty police officers should have mandatory video/audio recording at all times.
This does dovetail into the issue as to whether stand your ground laws are a good idea or not, however, as Jason pointed out.
Also, everyone should read this. (fixed)
So we get it. You don't like no-knock. That's fine. No-knock is bad and should be banned. It's dangerous for the cops and for potentially innocent bystanders as well. I agree with you 100% on this.
The problem with the Indiana law is that it's the standard stand-your-ground law with a clause specifically aimed at cops and other civil servants. Stand-your-ground laws have generally resulted in more bloodshed as it basically means you're allowed to open fire for the smallest of provocations.
Rym: I'm about equally fearful of law enforcement and criminals (except maybe in states like Arizona and South Carolina, where I'm definitely more fearful of law enforcement due to my ethnic background).
In other news, Shellie Zimmerman is being booked right now for perjury.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57451850-504083/shellie-zimmerman-wife-of-george-zimmerman-arrested-for-perjury/
Furthermore, as the article I linked to stated, there is a vast power, experience, and state of mind difference between police officers and civilians. If you you hear several men break your door down and enter into your house late at night, unannounced and you shoot them, you either are 1) a hero for shooting robbers/rapists/murders or 2) sentenced to the death for shooting a police officer. However, both of these outcomes depend not upon your actions, but rather on the person you shoot. Expecting the police to understand this concept and announce, openly identify with proper clothing, and respecting a civilian's protection to unreasonable search and seizure (i.e. not storming in with a SWAT team in suburbia) all make shooting a police officer unreasonable.
Laws have never been made on the basis of whether joe blow redneck could understand them or not. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
I agree with you about the power, etc., difference between police officers and civilians. I also disagree with the automatic sentencing to death (or similarly life in prison as I'm in general anti-death penalty anyway) for shooting a police officer. The legal system needs to take any extenuating circumstances into account when investigating incidents such as these. Cops should also be required to do whatever is necessary, including banning no-knocks, to minimize the chances of getting into a situation where an innocent civilian would open fire on them assuming them to be illegal intruders.
While I agree that laws aren't made to be understandable to Joe Blow Redneck, stand your ground laws such as the one in Indiana seem to be tailor made only to benefit Joe Blow Redneck.
Granted, I am often amazed at Wawa. It is the closest thing to a Japanese conbini with technological features that I have seen. A far cry from the bodega. I think if Mitt is genuinely exited about going in the Wawas and pressing buttons, he is acting in a way I can relate to.
/Wildwood Threadjack!
Lisa Brown is officially awesome.