no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think in the last 15 years that I have been on the job the number of burglaries, larceny, muggings, ID theft, and fraud, that were not to buy drugs of one kind or another, was maybe 5%. Total. It's not just drugs and who uses them, it's how they get the money to buy them.

My last burglary case was a heroin addict who kicked in the front door of a house on my patrol. I cover 2 towns, and over a hundred square miles, sadly I didn't stop him before he broke in. He took a mother of pearl decorated jewelry box, another plain box, and a whole bunch of other stuff. Threw the boxes in a dumpster, and pawned the stuff. He got $180 for over $4,000 worth of jewelry. The owner was a 89 year old man who brought the mother of pearl box back from India during WWII. He literally broke down and cried when he saw the box was taken. He had owned it for 65 years. I didn't have the heart to tell him we should legalize drugs.

Not really directly related to the topic at hand, it just drives me nuts when people give me the old legalize it line. Good luck with that.
 
Conn. Trooper, out of curiousity, do you have comparable stats for the reasons crimes are committed in the Netherlands? It would be interesting to see a direct comparison of rates between the US and a legalized-but-regulated country.
 
Nope, I can only speak from my first hand knowledge. I can see no benefit to making "hard" drugs legal. When a junkie spends hundereds of dollars a day, they have to steal to buy it.
 
I believe I am in the minority in general that I think drugs should be legalized. Drugs being illegal will not stop the use, abuse, and trafficking of drugs. Also, a large, large number of people have died because of the illegal nature of the drugs: cartels, home invasions, etc, etc. Conn Trooper you are evidence(and this isn't bad) that people usually stick to their guns on this topic/debate.

Just because a drug is legal doesn't mean more and more people are going to be going to stores to buy said drugs. In fact nothing says just because something is legal it has to be regulated - it just means that someone doesn't have to worry about prosecution if they decide to buy crack as one example. Obviously and usually some form of regulation will occur eventually. We as a people will not win a drug war.

As for other countries, there is a reason why America is a binge drinking country. An the old saying goes, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results."
 
So, we will all agree (I suppose) that if the druggy kicking in the door had been shot and killed by the 89 year old home owner this was justified...

but if Conneticut trooper is wrong by one house over and kicks in the same door and that old geezer takes him out then he is guilty of murder?

I'm trying to figure out how because we have drug crazed fends kicking in peoples doors it's okay for the government to do the same?
 
BlueTrain said:
Some of the admendments seem to have infringed on our constitutional rights, come to think of it.
Click to expand...
How?

The amendments are part of the Constitution. The Constitution establishes limits on the power of the government, it doesn't in any way limit the People. In fact, it says that the powers not authorized to the (Federal) government are reserved to the states, or to the People.
 
My comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek but I was think of prohibition, of course. It should go without saying that there was more than a little controversy when the constitution was adopted but nevertheless, it was. And it was admendmended almost right away and continues to be. Now the funny thing is, many today apparently don't like the constitution in the way it gives so much power to the federal government. It just seems like they would like to go back to what we had before, the articles of confederation. The Confederate States, in spite of their name, adopted a constitution almost the same as the US constitution, with certain not unexpected difference.

I guess you can't please all the people all the time.
 
Very interesting thread...

I would hope that the three Justices that voted for this decision would find themselves without appointments next go-round. This decision is too indiscriminate, too vulnerable to abuse. Generally it seems more like a careless attempt at creating a path to curb future civil cases against city and state. I find the ideal contemptuous and the decision reflecting a complete disregard for the general populace.

It is a terrible state of affairs when the citizenry would be given reason to fear the intruding Officer more than the boogieman.

Maybe I should have just remained silent...
 
Last edited:
I suggest anyone having any questions about the supposedly botched raid on a former marine's home where he as killed by SWAT go to Police.com website. It seems there was an officer wearing a helmet-cam. If this is true, and correct... The blame cant be placed on the police. There there would be no question of who was coming through the door.
 
Helmet cams do nothing to reassure citizens that the individuals breaking down their door are not impersonating officers, a common ploy of home invaders. Just saying.
 
Glenn Dee, regardless of whether he knew they were really the police, do you think it was normal for them to do a no-knock on a house that had at least one child or infant present?

That's my issue with this particular event.
 
Helmet cams show what happened but do not prove intent or what they were thinking. I saw the video and to me it sounded like someones car alarm went off when they put the siren on for 8-10 seconds. I heard them on the outside but it doesn't prove you could hear them on the inside of a house. I am a retired veteran with bad hearing who can't hear the wife good from 4 feet away.

Just the small part of the raid I saw on the video looked like a charlie foxtrot in action.

It was not wise for the citizen to do what he did either by pointing a weapon at the police. The best advice given in this thread would have been to be around a corner and ask who it is.

The police didn't help there cause when they said he shot at them and misinformed the public and then had to change the story.

This case needs a healty dose of sunlight to determine what happened to ensure we improve things for citizens and the police and we prevent it from happening again.
 
Last edited:
According to the film allegedly from an officers helmet cam... The police went well out of their way for the homeowner to know who it was...
First off.. the police sounded their sirens before making entry. Then they did knock and announce... Twice. This according to the film. And it wasnt in the dark of night... it was bright sunshine.

If this information is correct. I for one have been had.
 
OK I got it... Go to Policeone.com Select most watched... chose helmetcam deadly swat video... or something like that. Watch the video and decide for yourselves.
 
If everything is so right then why did the Police say the guy shot at them? Then had to rescind the statement when it was found out that the gun was still on safe and had never been fired?

An investigation from an independent party would be a good idea.
 
Glenn Dee, regardless of what the helmet cam shows, let us not lose sight of the end results of this search warrant "service": This was (remember), a search warrant, for an address ... it was not an arrest warrant for a named individual. By electing to serve this SEARCH warrant when they did and in the way they did, they created a situation that got the male resident killed, blatantly endangered the lives of an unarmed woman and small child ... and when they finally made their search they found ... NOTHING illegal.

How could justice or public safety possibly have been served by this action?

Why was it necessary (actually, it WASN'T necessary, so why did they choose) to execute the search when the guy was known to be home, since they knew when and where he worked and could easily have served the warrant when just the wife was home -- or done a smash-and-grab while the wife was at the supermarket?
 
Hmmmm ... We haven't been talking about the Indiana High Court ruling in some time. We've drifted from warrants in general (this was more on topic than what followed), over to no-knocks in general, and now a specific case in AZ.

I'll give it one shot to get back on topic, exactly because everyone's been very good at keeping the discussion civil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top