answering the door in Arizona

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

Starting to see a trend here?

 

That ruling directly contradicts Indiana's own state Constitution: Indiana Constitution - Article 1

Yet more proof that when given a choice between siding with the stormtroopers and the taxpayers, the court jesters will always choose the former.

 

If you read the article it is easy to see why the Deputys refused to allow treatment, the victim's wife "Told them to treat her husband" first important thing I learned living in AZ is-- Never tell law enforcement to do anything you might want done. She should have phoned 911 herself if she wanted medical care for her husband.

 

Interesting, so now we have a "Modern 4th amendment point of view?"

 

This whole scenario is terrifying!
If an officer breaks into your home without identifying and you shoot first, not knowing who or why they are there, then you're attacking the police and they will shoot you. And if you've only got your gun out and are trying to identify the intruder, then you're an armed suspect and they'll shoot you.
Not good...

The first article explains that she did call 911 herself, but that the deputies would not let the paramedics into the scene.

 

But this wasn't in Indiana. aranoid:

 

I was replying to another post referencing this article: Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home. Learn to read.

In any case, I'm sure this Arizona shooting will be rubber-stamped as justified, just like every other cop murder of a civilian.

 

I'd say the shooting sounds like an expected out come for someone found crouching down holding a firearm at the police executing the search warrant.

As for the delay in treatment I think that needs to be judged on whether or not the police were then in control of the house or if they retreated and were outside of the home with the danger in the home unsure.

If they were inside the home and in control of the situation then the delay was negligent. If they were outside the home in a defensive position the caution was warranted. If I had been a EMT and asked to go into an unsecured home I would have declined just as anyone would regardless of if the police allowed it.

The article doesn't speak of who was in control of the house and when so judgement is best left until more facts arrive.

 

If they had bothered to identify themselves before breaking down the door, I bet he would have been a little more careful about pointing that weapon at them.

 

Hard sayin', not knowin'.... But you are left to wonder if the old maxim "make sure there is only one side of the story" might have been a consideration.

And while we're at it... If you want my cooperation, knock on my door like a civilized human being and present your warrant, or face the possibility that you might get blown right back out the door if I don't know who you are or why you're kicking my door in. Criminals can and do yell "police" when breaking in. Act like an animal, and you shouldn't be surpised at being viewed and treated like one.

This whole SWAT mentality for every situation will make sure a lot of people die on both sides of the equation during the troubles I think are coming. I guess when your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail...

 

I'll work on that whole reading thing. Thanks! I didn't know I couldn't do that.

 

Did you read somewhere that they didn't?

 

That's what the wife said: Former Marine killed by SWAT was acting in defense, family says - KGUN9 On Your Side, Tucson News, Weather & Sports

 

The Indiana decision is completely ridiculous. It's entering a private residence illegally or "for no reason" that is against public policy.

It's becoming more apparent that police conduct needs to be looked at. I'm normally very sympathetic to police but the advent of camera phones has shown way too many incidents across the country - including Seattle - where the police report one version and the photos or videos show something entirely different. Have to get back "To Protect And To Serve" instead of lord over, mistreat and intimidate.

 

Some interesting reading regarding police tactics, specifically the last 4 blog posts and the responses:

Massad Ayoob

The Indiana ruling just boggles my mind. From what I've read, it wasn't as if there was a decent argument for exigent circumstances. On top of that it reads like a case of hot heads losing control of their egos on all sides during the incident.