Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

So what should we do?

2

Replies

  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 12,071 Senior Member
    Don't matter if "I really want you in my house." With so many future criminals owning guns securing the premises is a matter of survival for LEOs. I policed in a different time before gangs took over, but if you're dealing with a gang or a crowd of people, got to do what's necessary to survive.

    I never handcuffed anyone during a search. Never found it necessary; handcuffs come after an arrest. If it's a gang or group with a history of violence being search, you should either restrain the or set them in a single place for the officers' protection. Depends on the search warrant circumstances.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 12,071 Senior Member
    CHIRO1989 wrote: »
    Does a warrant legally require me to open my door without verifying its authenticity? That helps with you explanation of how you issued a warrant, thanks.

    You can't verify it's authenticity at the door...see "don't legislate at the door." Only a judge can determine if a warrant is authentic. The cop requirement is to Knock and Announce. If you're not allowed in after that, the door comes in.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    Never threaten a cop with serious bodily harm or deadly force, even if he's wrong. A cop has the right to self defense, even if he's at the wrong house. Siccing a dog or drawing a gun on a cop even if he's at the wrong house is going from a simple mistake to a deadly force incident in an instant.

    Why would any reasonable person do such a thing? If there is the wrong address on the warrant and the cops search, you've got grounds for a lawsuit. If he finds illegal substances during the illegal search, this evidence can't be used. Fruits of the poisoned tree.

    The thing to do IMO is to take the warrant, which must be given to you initially, read the address to make sure it's the proper address. If not, inform the officer he's at the wrong house. If he insists, refer to Paragraph two.

    The thing NOT to do is to try to legislate at the front door.

    I would add IMO to never threaten ANYONE with serious bodily harm or deadly force even if you're right. Nothing good can come of this.


    I see this from a different angle. If the cop is at the wrong address he is a home invader and subject to Castle Doctrine, especially in plain clothes. Saying "POLICE" @ 0-dark-30 is meaningless.

    I also have the right to defend my home and family from armed invaders. What you are suggesting is bend over and HOPE the invaders are real cops and everyone, including my dogs, survive the encounter.

    You expect the innocent citizenry to assume ALL of the risk. Possibly life ending events.

    I'd suggest police serve all warrants with marked cars, lights flashing, etc. If the suspect is violent, surround the house with marked cars and flashing lights. If the address is wrong, the homeowner knows he's clean and can surrender accordingly. Let the truth get sorted out while he (and his dogs) are breathing.

    Yeah, yeah, this doesn't allow for the element of surprise, but it would end many of the deaths associated with cops serving midnight warrants, including the deaths of officers.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 12,071 Senior Member
    How can you know he's at the wrong address?

    The Castle Doctrine does not cancel out the Right of Self Defense. It sounds good on paper or the screen, but point a gun at a cop and there's a good chance your next habitation will be small and refrigerated.

    As I said, many jurisdictions limit the time a warrant can be served. Lights, etc. pretty well guarantees any evidence the cops are after will be destroyed or give the gang members time to lock and load.

    For someone as worldly as you think you are, you seem to be missing a lot of common sense. But that's all too common with Keyboard Badasses.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    How can you know he's at the wrong address?

    The Castle Doctrine does not cancel out the Right of Self Defense. It sounds good on paper or the screen, but point a gun at a cop and there's a good chance your next habitation will be small and refrigerated.

    As I said, many jurisdictions limit the time a warrant can be served. Lights, etc. pretty well guarantees any evidence the cops are after will be destroyed or give the gang members time to lock and load.

    For someone as worldly as you think you are, you seem to be missing a lot of common sense. But that's all too common with Keyboard Badasses.


    *sigh*

    If a cop is banging at my front door, he's at the wrong address. Again, I do not engage in criminal activity.

    Castle Doctrine IS the right to self defense. If a cop kicks in a door and I shoot him (assuming I survive the encounter) I will likely not be charged in Idaho. Texas has already freed a man who killed a SWAT team member in a no-knock raid. In fact there are several precedents, including a man in MSP who defended his home from a SWAT team and survived, and was not charged.

    The police's collection of evidence should be secondary to raiding the wrong home. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

    If the house (assuming they have the correct address) is suspected gang members, break out the AV cops are so fond of.

    Common sense is considering new alternatives to the methods currently employed that leave people dead.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    If you've been a bad boy, if kiddie porn, ISIS websites, or illegal drugs are your thing, expect the police to appear, unannounced, sooner or later. On top of that, if your neighbor's the bad guy, oh well, it's not a perfect world, cops are people too, mistakes happen. Just like negligent discharges, car accidents, and breaking the yolks on your over-easy eggs. So, when something goes bump in the night, and you know you've broken some laws, just expect it to be the police. Real home invasions, by criminals, usually go down very differently than police raids or search warrants - think before you react, or overreact, and something goes awry.

    Whatever the LEOs may have gotten wrong, or right, or whatever, keep your ears open and your finger off the trigger - they will announce themselves as police, right after they murder your Chihuahua.

    The important thing is to not get yourself killed. You can be in the right --- dead right. There will always be time to sort out the situation afterwards. And if the Fuzz happened to battering-ram your front door on the way in, they'll cover it - your check is in the mail.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Just be careful what you grow or brew- - - - -even if you used to be DEA agents:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/95237485/Hydroponic-tomato-garden-tea-leaves-inspire-police-to-raid-US-familys-home

    Tomatoes and tea- - - -hardened criminals!

    Jerry
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 12,071 Senior Member
    Policestateusa is hardly a neutral site, although it probably attracts Cali and WOW. Sounds like a leftist site to me. Butt-hurt Snowflakes, Inc. Occupy Dems.

    Joan Walsh, an MSNBC liberal called ICE an armed dangerous gang. This fits right in with the left's view of LEOs doing their job.

    Chances are 99.999% if you obey the law, you'll never get served with any kind of warrant. Policestateusa is for cop-blockers and cop-haters. You are what you link.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • 6EQUJ5 - WOW!6EQUJ5 - WOW! Banned Posts: 482 Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    Policestateusa is hardly a neutral site, although it probably attracts Cali and WOW. Sounds like a leftist site to me. Butt-hurt Snowflakes, Inc. Occupy Dems.

    Joan Walsh, an MSNBC liberal called ICE an armed dangerous gang. This fits right in with the left's view of LEOs doing their job.

    Chances are 99.999% if you obey the law, you'll never get served with any kind of warrant. Policestateusa is for cop-blockers and cop-haters. You are what you link.

    Honestly, I've never heard of that site until it was posted. Unless it has to do with shooting sports or astronomy I really don't go out of my way to visit internet sites. However, with that said Gene, do you really believe that anyone who dares to question and speak out against the actions of certain police officers to be a leftist or cop hater? Do you remember the police officers who went down the line pepper spraying the sit-in protestors some years back? While I certainly disagreed with most of the message of those who were protesting I also found it despicable the actions being taken by the police on an otherwise peaceful protest. I bring that up because while I may disagree with many liberals and their political ideology, I will always be there for them to protect their rights to protest as guaranteed by our 1st Amendment. We live in a nation where we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights Gene, and quite frankly, I think you have forgotten that with your constant childish name calling, baiting, accusing people of being something they're not, and something that I really take exception to - suggesting I am a pro cop killer because I disagree with the actions of certain police officers. I could be wrong but I get the feeling that you're just a very angry and bitter person and I actually kind of of feel sorry for you. I think you really need to take a long hard look at our Tenets and realize that it makes absolutely no difference what side of the fence someone is on and come to realize that most Americans, regardless of political affiliation, cherish our freedoms.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 12,071 Senior Member
    Honestly, I've never heard of that site until it was posted. Unless it has to do with shooting sports or astronomy I really don't go out of my way to visit internet sites. However, with that said Gene, do you really believe that anyone who dares to question and speak out against the actions of certain police officers to be a leftist or cop hater? Do you remember the police officers who went down the line pepper spraying the sit-in protestors some years back? While I certainly disagreed with most of the message of those who were protesting I also found it despicable the actions being taken by the police on an otherwise peaceful protest. I bring that up because while I may disagree with many liberals and their political ideology, I will always be there for them to protect their rights to protest as guaranteed by our 1st Amendment. We live in a nation where we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights Gene, and quite frankly, I think you have forgotten that with your constant childish name calling, baiting, accusing people of being something they're not, and something that I really take exception to - suggesting I am a pro cop killer because I disagree with the actions of certain police officers. I could be wrong but I get the feeling that you're just a very angry and bitter person and I actually kind of of feel sorry for you. I think you really need to take a long hard look at our Tenets and realize that it makes absolutely no difference what side of the fence someone is on and come to realize that most Americans, regardless of political affiliation, cherish our freedoms.

    I find this inconsistent because you are always accusing outright ALL cops based on the actions of a very few. I have never yet seen you post anything favorable to cops, just the detrimental actions of a very few. And come to think of it never seen you post anything about shooting on a gun board. I'm fully aware of the Constitution, especially since I've sworn twice to defend and uphold it. Have you ever done so?

    You've posted your opinions about me, called me bitter but are offended when I post my opinions about you. I don't know you, maybe you're a stand-up citizen, but I know I am. Your posts are weak and at the same time revealing of your character. At least IMO.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,797 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    Policestateusa is hardly a neutral site, although it probably attracts Cali and WOW. Sounds like a leftist site to me. Butt-hurt Snowflakes, Inc. Occupy Dems..


    What does it matter if the site is anti LEO or pro LEO as long as the info that they list is factual?
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 12,071 Senior Member
    Is it factual? It's not SOP. At least not in my world. No, they abstract extreme cases of high-risk warrant service to make a point that this is how it's usually done. I can't believe you don't see your emotions are being manipulated. I guess if you see it on the Internet, it must be true, huh?

    It's like media reports that every semi-auto rifle is an "assault rifle." Any site that has an agenda is easy to believe if you agree with the concept.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 24,944 Senior Member
    Clowns to the left of me........jokers to the right...........here I am........
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,797 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    Is it factual? It's not SOP. At least not in my world. No, they abstract extreme cases of high-risk warrant service to make a point that this is how it's usually done. I can't believe you don't see your emotions are being manipulated. I guess if you see it on the Internet, it must be true, huh?

    It's like media reports that every semi-auto rifle is an "assault rifle." Any site that has an agenda is easy to believe if you agree with the concept.

    I'm not stating weather that site's info is factual or not and I've never heard of it until now but I'm asking again if the info that they post if factual, why would their intent matter? You actually consider yourself some being of supreme intellect because of your law enforcement experience and the rest of the population without LE experiences is a bunch of naive buffoons that are easily manipulated by the media. Do you ever consider for a moment that all of the general public is not as stupid as you perceive them?
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 12,071 Senior Member
    Well, it's like anti-gun folks posting violent gun owners as representing legal gun owners. That's not representative of all gun owners any more than that post is representative of police. We're a long way from being a police state, otherwise gangs like MS 13 would not exist. Nor would Occupy or Code Pink or any other 1st Amendment or 2nd Amendment groups exist that the non-existent Police State fallacy memes. I hope with diminishing hope that you and others do not believe we live in a Police State.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,797 Senior Member
    I'm mildly curious, are you foaming at the mouth a little right now?
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 12,071 Senior Member
    I'm always foaming at the mouth, but your reply is fatuous. Explain, please, instead of blowing it off in a juvenile manner.

    I'm defensive about a number of organizations I've belonged to...especially Viet Nam veterans, police officers, both of which I consider my brothers and both of which have come under fire from those who have no knowledge of what that brotherhood means. Some of my brothers have erred, but that doesn't make then any less my brothers to the concept and I'll defend them to the last of my days. I feel sorry for those who have not had the privilege of the closeness of any bonding experiences such as these.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,194 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    ...Some of my brothers have erred, but that doesn't make then any less my brothers to the concept and I'll defend them to the last of my days. I feel sorry for those who have not had the privilege of the closeness of any bonding experiences such as these.

    Ok - this plays right into my point in a couple of the "other threads". I call this "closing ranks". So are you telling me you'll defend "your brotherhood" right or wrong?

    I'm not asking to be a Richard - I'm trying to clarify what you're trying to say as I've seen the negative side of this.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,797 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    I'm always foaming at the mouth, but your reply is fatuous. Explain, please, instead of blowing it off in a juvenile manner.

    I'm defensive about a number of organizations I've belonged to...especially Viet Nam veterans, police officers, both of which I consider my brothers and both of which have come under fire from those who have no knowledge of what that brotherhood means. Some of my brothers have erred, but that doesn't make then any less my brothers to the concept and I'll defend them to the last of my days. I feel sorry for those who have not had the privilege of the closeness of any bonding experiences such as these.


    I'm also defensive about a few things, my faith, and my concept of right and wrong. I don't have any personal issues about feeling obligated to defend a wrong because of some bond with the perpetrator.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 12,071 Senior Member
    Zorba:

    No, if you'll re-read my post with any degree of understanding, you'll see I said "some have erred" but I defend the brotherhood of my VN and LEO members while acknowledging bad incidents. That doesn't mean the majority of my VN brothers or my LEO brothers are/were vile. They are not and are honorable. You're supplying your own incorrect definitions. No group is perfect, but I will defend my brothers from specious claims of vileness. I experienced a lot of horrible (and sometimes personal) criticism back in the late 60s and 70s defending my VN brothers and now continue to do so against false claims against my LE brothers. While acknowledging bad things have happened in VN and in LE, but they are not license to condemn us all. I rest my case.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,194 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    Zorba:

    No, if you'll re-read my post with any degree of understanding, you'll see I said "some have erred" but I defend the brotherhood of my VN and LEO members while acknowledging bad incidents. That doesn't mean the majority of my VN brothers or my LEO brothers are/were vile. They are not and are honorable. You're supplying your own incorrect definitions. No group is perfect, but I will defend my brothers from specious claims of vileness. I experienced a lot of horrible (and sometimes personal) criticism back in the late 60s and 70s defending my VN brothers and now continue to do so against false claims against my LE brothers. While acknowledging bad things have happened in VN and in LE, but they are not license to condemn us all. I rest my case.

    I agree with what you're saying here - I'm just curious to know how you feel about "dealing with" those who screw up. Do you "defend them to the last of my days" i.e. "close ranks" when they've done something clearly wrong? Or even not so "clearly" - for heaven's sake investigate things in the (whatever) dept. when there's questions. That's all I'm asking - for what its worth, I generally support, and even admire, police officers. They have a difficult job and have to deal with all kinds of petty annoyances - I had contact with our local constabulary just this evening, and as I've always personally experienced, the interaction was professional and courteous. I can't ask for anything more.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 12,071 Senior Member
    I basically agree. I don't believe in "closing ranks" on LEOs when they're clearly wrong but I do believe in defending the profession, which is basically and overwhelmingly not corrupt.

    I was in LEO management for 12 years and I didn't have any incident where "closing ranks" was called for. One of my deputy's wife was implicated in stealing from her employer. He was implicated and fired by us after he was indicted. And he'd been a deputy for years, but he was wrong and spent time in prison. So did she. The crime was outside our jurisdiction (her crime and his taking advantage of the income.) She was a book keeper, he was spending the money.

    Got to weed out criminals in any profession. In large cities with unions, this may be an institution, I don't say it is because I don't know, but unions have lawyers and lawyers and unions may give the impression of closing ranks. This was not true anywhere I worked. I've never worked in large union situations and I don't have a high opinion of unions in general, especially since being on the opposite side and also by my personality.

    I believe in closing ranks in cases of false claims against LE and there are a lot of these claims. I once got a call from a person who complained because a deputy ahead of him had thrown a cigarette butt out of a vehicle; turned out the complainer had gotten a ticket the week before. Once got a complaint because a deputy answering a bomb threat had passed a vehicle without blue lights but in a safe manner. The woman who worked at the place where the bomb threat was called was on lunch break; I explained that a siren could cause an electronic reaction to a bomb. She knew this but wasn't satisfied, Go figure.

    But once these claims are deemed to be serious (not throwing a butt outside a car) and significant, let the cards fall where they may. Cops do not deserve a break in felonies. No one does. I worked for an elected official last time, and was very respondent to complaints. It was part of my job.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 13,093 Senior Member
    Fisheadgib wrote: »
    I'm mildly curious, are you foaming at the mouth a little right now?

    HEY! I asked a legitimate question and would like this thread to stay civil, I GET Genes and Cali's points of view, Gene has made it clear he bases his opinions on past experiences and that the playing field has changed since he retired.

    Gene, I guess what it boils down to for me, is if an LEO can defend himself because he perceives his life is threatened and can then get a pass for shooting an innocent person the vast majority of the time after internal review and court decisions, why does the innocent home owner have a different standard if they perceive a threat and shoot an LEO that is at the wrong address? Fearing for your life should not be differentiated as such, you are dealing with human beings and as such the reactions would be expected to be similar on either side of the door. People do what people do.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 12,071 Senior Member
    It's not that simple. If a LEO identifies himself, which he should, you simply cannot shoot him because he's at the wrong house.

    Added to say armed cops have hundreds of thousands of encounters with citizens daily without putting the citizens in fear of their lives. You would have a very uphill defense if you shot a cop using "I feared for my life" as a defense.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 13,093 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    It's not that simple. If a LEO identifies himself, which he should, you simply cannot shoot him because he's at the wrong house.


    I think I should be able to verify that they are who they say they are before I open the door, regardless a warrant in hand or not. Obviously if this is done during business hours in broad daylight as opposed to late at night dictates the response, the goal is to avoid confrontation.

    I would argue that it is that simple when dealing with firearms, LEO's actions will dictate my reaction.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 12,071 Senior Member
    I don't know how you would be able to verify. Fact is, thousands of search warrants are served every day, and thousands of homeowners don't get shot nor do cops. In fact, off-hand, I can't think of any homeowner getting shot during a search warrant. I know a cop who did get shot by a meth dealer, but generally deadly violence isn't employed due to proper execution. If there is a delay to "verify" (however that is done) it could be a delay to destroy evidence or get a gun, which is what happened with the cop I know who got shot. In the legs. Knock and announce, and if a delay, the warrant holder has a duty (a search warrant is a court order) to seize the illegal evidence believed to be inside. To delay to verify (which is impossible) is tantamount to a refusal.

    So I think you probably have in your mind a very esoteric situation that doesn't exist in the practical world.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    "A No-Knock Warrant is a very risky situation and require reasons to ID the Officers as Officers. We never served them, because in GA, you have the right to shoot someone who illegally enters your house by force."

    Gene, if someone in plain clothes shows up at your door, flashing a badge, wearing a windbreaker with "POLICE" stenciled on it in dayglow lettering, and waving an unidentified piece of paper he claims is a warrant- - - - - - -do you intend to meekly submit and let him in? Somehow, I doubt that's going to happen. If you wouldn't allow yourself to be treated that way, why should any of the rest of us do so?

    All those official-looking items can be purchased on Ebay by anyone who wants them, or at gun shows, etc. I believe I could equip a convincing-looking SWAT team in a matter of a few days and go around invading homes at will if I were so inclined.

    Here's my badge- - - - -issued by the Washington DC police department:

    Wash_DC_38_014.jpg

    That's a commemorative S&W Model 10- - - - -sold as a fundraiser by the most anti-gun city in the nation, with a badge as a matching serial-numbered accessory and felt lined mahogany presentation case.
    Jerry
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 12,071 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    "A No-Knock Warrant is a very risky situation and require reasons to ID the Officers as Officers. We never served them, because in GA, you have the right to shoot someone who illegally enters your house by force."

    Gene, if someone in plain clothes shows up at your door, flashing a badge, wearing a windbreaker with "POLICE" stenciled on it in dayglow lettering, and waving an unidentified piece of paper he claims is a warrant- - - - - - -do you intend to meekly submit and let him in? Somehow, I doubt that's going to happen. If you wouldn't allow yourself to be treated that way, why should any of the rest of us do so?


    Jerry

    Yes, in fact, I would. What are the alternatives? It's how search warrants are served. Since I don't break any laws or have contraband in my house, I'd be curious, but that's it. "Resisting to the last round" is one of those things that sound good in cheap novels but don't happen often in real life.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • john9001john9001 Senior Member Posts: 668 Senior Member
    I wonder if homeowners insurance will cover the damage from a no knock search?
This discussion has been closed.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement