Posted on 05/15/2011 11:36:35 AM PDT by John Semmens
Idiots...and, yes, I know, but this stuff is serious business..
Why do the mental images of the food police,
smoking police,speech and thought police enter my thoughts? Of course that would be silly to think - today. Not so silly 10 years from now.
Uh oh.....Nero Wolfe isn’t gonna like this.
With superior firepower anyone can come in.
Good luck with that. ;-)
A man was in a physical confrontation with his wife. He was on the lawn when police arrived. He retreated to the house. His wife invited police in. Man claimed right to refuse them entry. Cops entered. He hit cops. He was convicted of battery on an LEO.
In his defense, he claimed cops entry was illegal and therefore, he had right to physically repel what he singularly determined was an illegal entry.
Court disagreed on both counts. Warrentless entry is permitted in many cases, including if a person who has a right to be there invites them.
Secondly, the concept, based in Common Law but refuted for many years, that a person has the right to physically repel what they deem to be an illegal LEO entry, has been well revoked for years.
Reasons were many, but two leading ones were that a homeowner in such a situation has multiple remedies that do not involve immediate physical force against the LEOs. Homeowner has civil remedies (lawsuits), redress, exclusion of evidence obtained, etc. if he is correct.
Secondly, let's play it out to its logical conclusion. Cops enter, thinking they have a legal right to do so. Homeowner thanks they do not. It really doesn't matter who is right if the homeowner pulls a gun and 2 or 3 people end up dead.
The courts have now recognize and reaffirmed that this is a situation better resolved in the light of a cool heads on a later day, rather than a gunfight between cops and a beer-empowered homeowner.
This is also a case where idiots who do not understand the real issue get Conservatives riled up with a non-story.
But then, Osama was growin' dope so a no-knock police raid was "justified".
It’s satire.
That’s the problem with satire. When it’s too good, it’s hard to tell it from the truth.
all the ruling they needed was to say in this case the cops had legal reason to force entry. They went beyond that and said no one has the right to stop ILLEGAL ENTRY.
big difference.
Apparently, you are comfortable being a sheep. Others are not.
Who revoked it and when?
Cops enter, thinking they have a legal right to do so. Homeowner thanks they do not. It really doesn't matter who is right if the homeowner pulls a gun and 2 or 3 people end up dead.
Cops enter grab your gun, thinking they have a legal right to do so. Homeowner thinks they do not. It really doesn't matter who is right if the homeowner pulls a gun and 2 or 3 people end up dead.
So should the gunowner give up his gun since he can get redress in court?
Barely.
No. It’s not
True, but that's John's trademark.
Ya have to listen very carefully, because it's not exactly what was said, yet ya know that the speaker would say exactly that in an unguarded moment.
John Semmens has made me a better observer and I don't make the mistake of seeing what I want to see rather than what's there, since reading his stuff.
From the top of the article:
By John Semmens: Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News
The author's own words.
Actually the story is based on a real case,,,, but then some satire was added.
Who revoked it and when.
SCOTUS and others, since the 1920s
The English common-law right to resist unlawful police action existed for over three hundred years, and some scholars trace its origin to the Magna Carta in 1215. Craig Hemmens & Daniel Levin, “Not a Law at All”: A Call for the Return to the Common Law Right to Resist Unlawful Arrest, 29 Sw. U. L. Rev. 1, 9 (1999). The United States Supreme Court recognized this right in Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529, 535 (1900): “If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest.” The Supreme Court has affirmed this right as recently as 1948. United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 594 (1948) (“One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases.”).
In the 1920s, legal scholarship began criticizing the right as valuing individual liberty over physical security of the officers. Hemmens & Levin, supra, at 18. One scholar noted that the common-law right came from a time where “resistance to an arrest by a peace officer did not involve the serious dangers it does today.” Sam B. Warner, The Uniform Arrest Act, 28 Va. L. Rev. 315, 330 (1942). The Model Penal Code eliminated the right on two grounds: “(1) the development of alternate remedies for an aggrieved arrestee, and (2) the use of force by the arrestee was likely to result in greater injury to the person without preventing the arrest.” Hemmens & Levin, supra, at 23. In response to this criticism, a majority of states have abolished the right via statutes in the 1940s and judicial opinions in the 1960s. Id. at 24–25. . .
We believe . . . that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action. E.g., Warner, supra, at 330 (citing the dangers of arrest at common law—indefinite detention, lack of bail, disease-infested prisons, physical torture—as reasons for recognizing the right to resist); State v. Hobson, 577 N.W.2d 825, 835–36 (Wis. 1998) (citing the following modern developments: (1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3) the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies). We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest— as evident by the facts of this instant case. E.g., Hobson, 577 N.W.2d at 836 (“But in arrest situations that are often ripe for rapid escalation, one‘s ̳measured‘ response may fast become excessive.”).
Secondly, just don't draw a gun or try to decide who is right in the heat ofthe situation in thefirst place.
That’s ben law ofland since about the 1920s, see above.
That’s been law ofland since about the 1920s, see above.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.