Posted on 05/14/2011 3:32:09 AM PDT by markomalley
Interesting comment at the link...
“...this new law”
I don’t want to register to dispute the fact the judge is legislating from the bench. There is no codified “new law.”
This ruling is horribly bad.
I’ve been a victim of a violent crime in my own home...intruders will be shot first and asked questions later.
If you knock on my door claiming to be ‘officers’ and I resist your inquiry by demanding dispatch proof you are real officers at my home...and you proceed to force entry...you will be shot.
From the opinion:
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.
The cities, along with their rootless atomized urban lifestyle are responsible for producing and enabling the police state, welfare state, Marxism, communist and entitlement mentalities.
????
????
MODERN????
what Constitution do these guys read?
"If you knock on my door claiming to be ‘officers’ and I resist your inquiry by demanding dispatch proof you are real officers at my home...and you proceed to force entry...you will be shot."Do you seriously think your buckshot or .30 cal or whatever is going win against a fire team wearing armor, NVS goglles, secure comms? Even military training without the miliary grade weapons, comms and equipment, won't help you, just as it did not help this Marine (see the link.) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2719700/posts
Soon it just becomes open warfare ala many parts of Los Angeles. In that scenario all cops lose. Then the cops will escalate to even more paramilitary operations and more citizens and cops will be killed. This could get out of hand very fast.
The other thing I wonder about is the castle doctrine that many States have. Witnesses to the Tucson murder are saying the cops never identified them selves. As far as I am concerned it is a free fire zone if you are trying to break into my home and do not identify yourself.
body armour may contain 7.62X39 and smaller...but will be like tissue paper to .30-06 and bigger...
see #46...this crap needs to end....
...contending that allowing residents to resist officers who enter their homes without any right would increase the risk of violent confrontation. If police enter a home illegally, the courts are the proper place to protest it, Justice Steven David said.
“Makes me wonder what kind of “police” we’ll be dealing with in a few years”.
It is not completely on topic but I have noticed a trend with law enforcement. Many departments have gone to all black uniforms, black boots, and the younger males (young defined at under 40) like to shave their heads. The “look” is more militaristic in my opinion. Gone are the days of a tan or blue uniform with a stripe up the pants. The new uniform is not for specialty groups either like K-9. It is for the regular patrol officers.
As a homeowner, I would assume that an unlawful “police” entry was not being conducted by real police. There is a clear self-defense right to resist unlawful entry in general, and it would come down to who had better armor (depends on which “police” and how much warning I had), who was a better shot (definitely me), and who had more manpower (definitely them, if it really was the police). Wouldn’t it be better for law enforcement to follow the law, rather than to end up with some dead cops and possibly one or more dead civilians?
The appalling process in Indiana:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/supreme/todays.html
Ping
Evan Bayh was such a moderate Democrat. Just makes my pants tingle.
This is exactly what is needed for gun confiscation.
Damn straight - they're Ranger wannabes with their "high and tight" hairdos and bloused boots. They'll be asking for black berets before too long.
I beleive that is the agenda.
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.