If police enter your home...illegally? What would you do?

[joshp3]

SHOCK POLICE STATE VIDEO: "You Have No Right To Be In Here! You Have No Right to Be In Here!"
I would encourage everyone to watch this video and consider the situation. What would you do? What is right? Obviously the simple answer is to never put yourself in this spot, but when the police overstep there boundaries and violate your rights, at what point do you defend yourself? And if you get to that point, do you have the right to defend yourself against unlawful entry?

Read More

 

[dmancornell]

If you live in Indiana, you shoot them: Indiana legalizes shooting cops

 

[Grunwald]

Lots of videos on youtube of cops trampling over people's constitutional rights.
It just reminds me why I like my doors to swing out and not in. A heck of a lot more difficult to kick in (and I am more worried about street criminals than some power tripping cop).

 

[vertical ascent]

It is called early retirement, hire the best civil rights attorney.

 

[joshp3]

Good call on the door! I tend to agree with you about the crimal vs power hungry cop but, if it were a criminal...no problem. Kill him. There are no grey areas there. Now if it is a cop, if you shoot him...now your the criminal, unless your dead because the 2 guys behind him shot you. I guess the thing that concerns me is that a criminal has no back up and has no real possibility of legal defense and throwing your *** in jail for defending yourself. The early retirement option only works if the police allow you camera to "survive the encounter".

 

[Provincial]

In Oregon you have a "duty to retreat" from a threat in your home, even from a deadly threat.

My preference would be to let them do their thing and sue them after. The way the police are militarized these days, a gunfight would be a losing proposition.

EDIT: I am in error here. The ruling that created this "duty to retreat" was overturned later. See Post #11 for the current ruling, and some history on this.

 

[vertical ascent]

With todays technology you can transmit video in real time to the web, and when it hits the web, no one can erase the video fast enough, it will spread like wildfire.

 

[DieselScout]

So, these doors that swing out, were are the hinges? If they are on the outside who needs to kick anything in?

 

[Scout67]

In Oregon you have a "duty to retreat" from a threat in your home, even from a deadly threat.

Never heard that before, and a deadly threat in my home will more than likely result in someone getting killed, not me retreating.
I would not shoot at an officer in my home under most circumstances. More than likely they would be at the wrong address.

 

[joshp3]

I've never heard it either, not to say it's not a fact, but here is an ORS code that seems to give a general statement on your legal right to defend your home

161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or
(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]



I would be shocked if there isn't a seperate section describing your rights when a "peace officer" is involved.

 

[Provincial]

The Oregon Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Betty Roberts in the 1982 case of State of Oregon vs. Charles, established a "duty to retreat." The Court made up that duty on it's own. In 2007 it appears that the Oregon Supreme Court reversed that ruling and produced an opinion that there is no duty to retreat in Oregon. That case was State of Oregon vs. Sandoval. In that opinion the later Court described the 1982 ruling in part: "Indeed, the entire analytical flow of the Charles opinion is distinctly odd..." and "the court concluded, inexplicably, that "Oregon case law * * * controls the subject."

It appears that in Oregon there is a lack of consistency. At least the current ruling follows logic and the statutes.

I believe the earlier ruling was in response to a fatal shooting of an Portland officer during a raid on a drug house, although the Charles case came later. The drug house shooter was successful in using the "Castle" defense and that did not sit well with the liberals.

So, I was wrong about Duty to Retreat in Oregon. I was unaware that the Sandoval case corrected that travesty.

The big question is how to determine if it really is the police entering your home. With criminals committing home invasions while identifying themselves as police, the homeowner is in a tough spot trying to sort it out in "combat." Perhaps we need a thread about that subject alone!

 

[Darknight]

In Oregon you have a "duty to retreat" from a threat in your home, even from a deadly threat.

Where did you read that? Give citation, ORS or ruling.

 

[theminutemenrideagain]

A good old semi auto 12 gauge with a 3rnd mag extention full of fosters would have kept em out. cause at that point they are breaking the law and assaulting a person after breaking into his home at gunpoint? they would be begging for all 8oz's as fast as you could dish them out

 

[Burt Gummer]

A reinforced frame door made to withstand a kick-in would always be a good idea.

No, it will not stop a burglar or a thug, but it will take a dozen tries to get in which at least gives you time to prepare mentally for the torture/tazing and the death of your dog, etc.

There is no point in fighting off thugs at your door. Have you ever heard of police ever giving up and admitting defeat? No. They'll just keep coming back with more hardware. Better to acknowledge that NO you do not live in a free nation whatsoever and submit. The 98% - some call them the mindless sheeple - will be cheering on your submission as the bad guy who was taken down by heroes.

 

[Kevinkris]

A reinforced frame door made to withstand a kick-in would always be a good idea.

No, it will not stop a burglar or a thug, but it will take a dozen tries to get in which at least gives you time to prepare mentally for the torture/tazing and the death of your dog, etc.

There is no point in fighting off thugs at your door. Have you ever heard of police ever giving up and admitting defeat? No. They'll just keep coming back with more hardware. Better to acknowledge that NO you do not live in a free nation whatsoever and submit. The 98% - some call them the mindless sheeple - will be cheering on your submission as the bad guy who was taken down by heroes.

far too much truth in this post. the sad thing is both of the residents in that article will likely be convicted of something ridiculous, while the cops keep their jobs.

 

[Joshg]

far too much truth in this post. the sad thing is both of the residents in that article will likely be convicted of something ridiculous, while the cops keep their jobs.

Probably child abuse. I noticed that he said one kid was playing outside. I can see it now "How could you let your child be outside on their own while you were hassling those scared officers and making them tase you? Don't you realize how much that cell phone looked like a gun, and those things you were shouting were threats!"

 

[salmonriverjohn]

Testosterone driven pack mentality? I swear if they didn't have tasers they'd shoot more people with bullets, and call it justified. Its a maddening video to watch, but once a domestic violence 911 call has been made, someones usually going to jail. I'm in no way saying its right, because we all know that in the heat of an argument some people do really stupid things (including cops), but once that call has been made the police have an obligation to dispatch. If they didn't respond and someone was beaten to death later? Yes I agree that it appears to be an illegal entry and that many rights were violated here, but it's easy to armchair it from a video that only shows a snapshot of this part. (I'm playing the devils advocate here) Was it the wife that called? Was it a neighbor that hears it go on all the time? Was it one of the kids?
Far to many variables to draw a conclusion. I'm in no way taking the LEO's side of this one, but I really wouldn't have wanted to have been on either end of that video, at least it exists for either a defense or a lawsuit.

 

[Joshg]

My response if it was an anonymous call...

In reality, under Florida v. J.L. (March 28, 2000), "the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that anonymous tips are not sufficient grounds to constitute probable cause for a search. Judge Ginsburg, writing for the Supreme Court, stated, "Such an exception would enable any person seeking to harass another to set in motion an intrusive, embarrassing police search of the targeted person simply by placing an anonymous call...."

Beyond that, I don't know anything about the call. But the wife was clearly right there and fine.

 

[salmonriverjohn]

I hear you Joshg, far to many loose ends. Hell, did he got hit with a frying pan? Too many people get into a dispute these days and pick up the phone and use 911 as a threat though to settle an otherwise innocuous argument, the results of which turn into something far greater.

 

[Kevinkris]

Probably child abuse. I noticed that he said one kid was playing outside. I can see it now "How could you let your child be outside on their own while you were hassling those scared officers and making them tase you? Don't you realize how much that cell phone looked like a gun, and those things you were shouting were threats!"

not to flame but i dont really understand your point.