What if I shoot an agent or cop.

I remember reading about something a couple of years ago in st Charles, Missouri. The raiding police team had the wrong address and killed a innocent civillian. I think the lawsuit got the wife over a million bucks, but it didnt make the husband anymore alive. But how do you protect yourself from a bunch of raging storm troopers who think they are right?

------------------
10MM Magnum.... tried the rest, now I got the best
 
How did the officers requesting the warrant believe that a no-knock warrant was justified, or that there was a high probability of violence if they had limited information about who or what might be in the house? The sentence seems to promote a set of facts while at the same time presenting evidence that those facts are not true.

I don’t mean to nit-pick this particular case (as presented) but to point out a general move towards assuming that all who are being investigated must be neutralized before being approached or searched even if there is no evidence that they are a hazard.
 
Paul Revere: As to your comment on the What If I Shot a Cop or Agent post, and "in this country, we are a long way from that", I suggest that you look again. It has already happened here, California, for instance, is "in this country".

There, the "injured party", spelled LAW ABIDING CITIZEN, much shot-up, recieved a
"settlement", that is spelled TAXPAYER FUNDS, and all is well, except that it isn't, for regarding those ultimately responsible for this criminal screw-up, I rather suspect that nothing happened, unless some convenient, low level sacrifical lamb happened to walk by.

Some might suggest buying lots of guns and ammunition, while others would suggest "bugging" ones home. Personally, I would prefer raising all sorts of hell with those responsible, and with our "elected things", who are ultimately responsible, correction, for ultimately is it "we" who are responsible, however the "elected things" are always a handy tareget, and certainly a reasonable one.
 
Assert your rights under the 5th Amendment and wait for your attorney.

------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
 
My opinions: Communities who have DA's and Judges who are weak on criminals are provided more opportunities to meet said criminals on both the street and in their homes. Communities who allow a group of LEO's to sell them on the concept of an elite commando unit with no strict guidelines on said units discretion is asking for trouble. Communities who are sold on the need for SWAT teams and have the misfortune of inept Judges(hey, they are just lawyers)have potential hell to pay in lives and dollars. To the original question, I have evaluated the above scenarios and determined a defense level I find currently satisfactory. I am a law abiding citizen who supports good Constitutional law enforcement. The team member who is trained to take out ANY resistance upon entry into my home in order to defend his fellow team members must accept the same fate as my death in a mistake. If I kill him it is still a mistake. Why? Because I have not violated any law. No law requires me to ask if the intruder in my home is a police officer. If I feel my life is in danger(even without seeing an identifiable weapon, a 200 lb. man in full flack coming my way at 3:00 a.m. in near darkness in my home wants to hurt me). If he gets hurt in the wrong house insurance pays the same. Bottom line is he should not be placed in the wrong house by either cowboy CO's, Judges, gung ho DA's or the worst, lazy and easily frightened community voters. I have yet to be convinced that these tactical units are necessary in a Constitutional Republic. Let's get rid of them now before it is too late.
 
When they hit your house - you will have 5 to 10 black clad ninja turtles all pointing guns at you before you could say "Whatthef.."

Resistance is Futile.

------------------
"America is a melting pot, the people at the bottom get burned while all the scum floats to the top."


RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
The Critic formerly known as Kodiac
 
On no-knock warrants and the destruction of evidence: the government, and law enforcement in particular, *have no guaranteed right to successfully apprehend or prosecute a suspect*. Americans *do* have the right to be free from warrantless searches and self-incrimination, and are entitled to due process under the law. This whole twisted concept that the government can't enforce the law without infringing upon our natural and Constitutional rights is a flat out lie.

The DOJ is now asking for the authority to execute sealed search warrants against suspects' homes, for the purpose of installing backdoors in software on their computers, so that if they have hidden or encrypted files, or are committing some crime via computer, the government will be able to extract that data and convict based upon their intrusion. Don't think for a moment that the second amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights being used to wipe the saliva from Uncle Sam's gaping maw. This is not the same country we were born into.
 
Okay, here at the Academy, we devoted about an hour of discussion to this topic.

WE were covering use of force and the Instructor was trying to get the point across that (at least in VA) if you are making a false arrest the person you are trying to take into custody has the right to resist with anything up to and including lethal force.
IE- if you are being arrested illegally, you can resist.
BUT, the caveat is that if the officer is acting in good faith you must comply. IOW, if he is serving a warrant that has your name on it by mistake, you MUST comply, even if the warrant is a mistake.. he is "just doing his job."

I asked the question about "What about no-knock warrant situations, is lethal force allowed in the case of a mistake with a SEARCH warrant?"
the first response was "Where the hell are you from?"... Virginia does not have any such thing as "No Knock Warrants".. doom on me.

the second response was that if the warrant had the address of the home on it, or if the officer was "acting in good faith" (ie- believed that he was in the right house), the citizen would not be immune from prosecution.
OTOH, case law from Florida and Texas (at least) tells us that people have shot officers during raids and avoiding conviction. In the Florida case it was a PROPER Raid executed on the RIGHT house and person, but he argued that when he was awoke by guys in Ninja Suits yelling at him he shot in defense. He was NOT convicted for the death of the officer he shot.

The instructor, nor any students, were aware of a precedent in VA.

Lessons Learned: (IMHO)

If you are an LEO:

Make sure you are legally able to arrest someone before you try to.
Make sure you are at the right house.
Identify yourself, not only verbally, but also by wearing CLEARLY marked clothing, badges, etc....

If you are a Citizen:

Be careful who you shoot, please.



------------------
-Essayons
 
Thank you for you insight Rob.

------------------
"It is easier to get out of jail then it is a morgue"
Live long and defend yourself!
John 3:16
 
I would think that surviving friends of the deceased could eliminate whoever ordered+whosever lead the raid. A history of accidents befalling the "brains" could make a difference in the level of motivation for ordering or carrying out subsequent raids. In other words, mafia has had the answer all along, except the good guys might spare uninvolved family members.

A depressing thought.
 
Leedsert;
No need to shoot them. Get a fire extinquiser and fill it with gasoline then pressurize it. No need to worry about them wearing bullet proof vests either. Also, it works around corners, incapacitates totally and instantly and multiple targets can be "sprayed" at once. Then too, you don't need a lisence or permit to own one and, if your a felon already, there are no laws that can be used against you for carrying a gun.

We had a Highway patrolman shot here in California yesterday. He survived because he had on a bullet proof vest. If the guy doing the shooting had used gasoline there would have been one dead cop despite the bullet proof vest.

Basically, the point is that if you are bent on killing, you don't need a gun and a bullet proof vest provides little security in this case.

Hey! as a desperate criminal you could even rig your car so that when an officer approaches he gets sprayed with gas........poof! end of problem.

All we need is for Hollywood to start glorifying this kind of thing just like they glorify the use of guns/killing or violence and before you know it, every punk, criminal or no good low life will be using gasoline to attack and kill whomever. Where there's a will, and an idea, there's a way! Gun or no gun!
 
Frank-
I am sensitive to your point but disagree with the presentation. If we simply substitute the word "child" for "cop" in every instance of your post the point would remain, but the post would become quite distateful to most.

Again, your point is valid...however, it is equally obvious, no?
Regards,
Rich
 
This thread is starting to turn my stomache...

I am not big on the idea of TFL members talking about taking out LEOs.

I am not a fan of Law Enforcement Abuses - Even if they are wrong, or given unlawful orders... they are still GOOD GUYS. The real enemy is Janet Reno and the Klinton Posse.

------------------
"America is a melting pot, the people at the bottom get burned while all the scum floats to the top."


RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
The Critic formerly known as Kodiac
 
Whoa George, If a LEO gets an unlawful order and carries it out that makes him an ACCOMPLIS in a crime. At that point it doesn't matter how good of a guy he is. If it doesn't get him killed, he still belongs in jail. Same goes for me.
 
It looks like my origional question has been lost. The last person to answer with some intelligence here was Rob. When someone bust into my house wearing black carrying a gun they have chosen to be my target and they will get shot. This is assuming I had no warning that they were LEO's.
My post was to explore the what if's not the how too's. This thread can be locked at anytime. Please think about what your writing here guy's.

------------------
"It is easier to get out of jail then it is a morgue"
Live long and defend yourself!
John 3:16
 
I agree that Rob has made an intelligent distinction between a legal and illegal arrest.And in SOME states it is legal to resist an illegal arrest, but not all.

Rich is right. Lets not talk about killing police officers. It really, of itself, adds nothing to the discussion and it labels us as a bunch of gun-nutty anarchists.

We have discussed the pros and cons-the good vs. the bad police officers until we all have a pretty good idea of the distinctions.

I almost hate to say it, but we really must watch our image. As my friend Royal F. Hill says: "Perception isn't everything, but it's all they need."

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
Leedesert, Sorry my responses and others don't measure on your intelligence scale, and I agree Rob had good feedback to your original question. Frank will be frank so to speak. Right or wrong. Don't bundle the rest of us up in the same blanket please. I suggest you reread all the prior posts as I did and reevaluate your position. No flame intended.
 
Your welcome Rich.

------------------
"It is easier to get out of jail then it is a morgue"
Live long and defend yourself!
John 3:16
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top