-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
sued for stopping illegals
- Thread starter wink
- Start date
I respect what a police officer has to do on a daily basis, but no knock warrants being served by SWAT officers doesn't seem to "serve and protect" the innocent when they go thru the wrong door.
I'm searching for an article to post (can't find it yet, might be archived) of a similar instance to the first article in Hokie's previous post, but it didn't work out so well for the officers, or the innocent individual. Gentleman put two .45 rounds thru a SWAT officers face, and is now serving a life sentence if memory serves me correct. He had no priors, wasn't in the warrant, and owned the gun legally. It was just the wrong house to go walking in dressed all in black late at night, and the police officer paid for the mistake with his life, and took another man's life with him.
I'm searching for an article to post (can't find it yet, might be archived) of a similar instance to the first article in Hokie's previous post, but it didn't work out so well for the officers, or the innocent individual. Gentleman put two .45 rounds thru a SWAT officers face, and is now serving a life sentence if memory serves me correct. He had no priors, wasn't in the warrant, and owned the gun legally. It was just the wrong house to go walking in dressed all in black late at night, and the police officer paid for the mistake with his life, and took another man's life with him.
Not to discount anything stated here as I completely agree.
That being said there are some states, Texas is one of them where IF the situation is a blatantly clear case of self defense you will not be arrested. In situations where you are prosecuted but are acquitted you may not be tried in civil court. Just FYI, but still don't use force liberally.
GroundPounder
Well-Known Member
I'd have to see the specifics of the case, but if there was no warrant to enter the house, and the team entered the house on a " no knock " , the police would not be in the house leagally. A " reasonable " person, confronted by several armed people pointing weapons at them would normally be justified in using deadly force to defend themselves.
This is why I always check, recheck, and then check again when I serve such warrants. It happens more than it should and when you go to the wrong house, nothing good ever comes out of the experience.
"Fog of War" and all that... As I understand it, LEO are not supposed to shoot blindly thru walls or doors. Target or threat "in sight" as it were. Armed "homeowners" are not trained to such standards. I would question the advisibility of standing in the open with no protection while serving such a warrant if the occupants are considered such a threat that that type of entry is warranted.
Just my $.02, not trying to be critical of anyone. Their jobs are tough enough as it is...
Just my $.02, not trying to be critical of anyone. Their jobs are tough enough as it is...
Mostly true. That is why guys that think so called Castle Doctrine laws allow them to shoot anyone breaking into their house or trespassing need to read the laws very carefully. Most places Castle Doctrine only means you don't have to retreat (has always been the case in my state) but you still must be threatened physically, and generally with deadly intent.
You are not correct that in states where self defense is an affirmative defense your case is automatically dismissed. If that were true, my wife would have not been so busy the last 20 years. You must still must convince the prosecutor or judge, or finally, if necessary, a jury that it was self defense. Everything in the legal system is debatable and open to interpretation. Just because you shot a guy coming at you with a knife does not automatically mean a case is never brought. You are far more likely that will be the case in criminal court. But in civil court you will very likely have to defend your self again, but with a wad of cash and an attorney vis a Sig 226.
Total population has nothing to do with the rime rate.
From what little I know, 'no-knock' entries are a necessary tool for law enforcement. While there are some ugly incidents, we just had an innocent mayor get his two dogs killed in PG County because of a raid, I think they make up a very small percentage of the total.
No shit? So if OJ had cut up a couple people in Texas he would not have been sued? I find that hard to believe. Most state constitutions guarantee a citizen's right to the courts. Civil and Criminal are two very different things with different standards of proof, rules of evidence, procedure, etc. I am not saying you are wrong since I really don't know. But for my education can you provide a reference?
I agree with you that laws are always fussy and you can sued anybody for anything, the utterly ridiculous should just get immediately thrown out. I obviously don't know the specifics of your situation but here is how the Florida law treats it:
Title XLVI CRIMES
Chapter 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.--
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, [...] As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
i.e. if you sue a person and loose on self defense grounds, you owe a lot of money.
Right. Florida is a "Stand Your Ground" state, which means that you are not required to retreat anywhere. It is very liberal (wouldn't that be conservative?) with regard to personal defense.
So is AZ and many other states.
Sections 1 and 2 are pretty common. You can claim self defense, but the police will investigate to see if it really was. And if the cops think it wasn't and the prosecutor agrees with them, you get to convince a jury that it was self defense. It is Section 3 that I like! We don't have that provision in my state.
Sorry I should have clarified, in a self defense case. We passed the law in 2006 I believe. Basically if a grand jury acquits you for the use of deadly force you can not be tried in civil court.
@ Flash, while you are correct rate would normally not matter, it seems you didn't look at the link that was posted. The link that was posted gave total number of crimes committed, not crimes committed / capita. The 8th in the nation for crime statistic was overall crimes committed. Considering that Texas is 2nd in the nation, its pretty good that we are 8th in the nation for crimes committed.
EDIT: Misread the data, Flash was right.
Wait, I posted the link and Flash was right?
Vast Left Wing Conspiracy!
Vast Left Wing Conspiracy!
OK, I am rather conflicted about that. I don't appreciate the BS law suits brought by criminals and other riff raft over justifiable shootings, but I am also for rather liberal civil rights and letting the community set the standards they want to live with. I don't like the idea of barring someone from the courts. I prefer the Florida example cited above. Let them sue at their own peril.