“there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers...”

[AllOut]

If a person out of uniform tried to do the same they would probably get their ass kicked or possibly shot.
Michael Brown

You got to elaborate on this a little for me...
As far as the ass whoop'n goes. Why would someone in uniform stand a better chance than someone not in uniform. I'm not insinuating you think the outfit gives super powers but what's the difference?
Being shot??? I can see that, given the time it would have taken you to reach the UC officer he probably could have easily drawn down on you before you reached him. I'm sure you being in uni probably kept him from doing that.

 

[Werewolf]

Not trying to hijack, but were you in uniform? If so, what would happen if a civilian did this? I know alot of people that wouldn't just keep driving after seeing that.

Oklahoma recognizes the doctrine of stepping into another's shoes.

As taught by an attorney (Doug Friesen of OKC) in the CCW class I took 10 years ago, "you'd better be damn sure whose shoes you're stepping into before you act". He related many incidents where a good citizen stepped into the wrong shoes and was later charged with a crime at least one of whom ended up in McCalester.

In the case Officer Brown related if a citizen took exactly the same action as he it is not outside the realm of possibilities that the citizen could have been charged with assault on a police officer, obstructing justice, aiding and abetting and a host of other potential charges. And that doesn't even begin to address the very real possibility that the officer could have been in a situation where he felt threatened enough to shoot the citizen dead.

As attorney Friesen so rightly pointed out - before intefering in any situation that may involve the use of force, deadly or not, you'd better be 100% sure of the circumstances in which you are choosing to insert yourself and very willing to accept both the responsibility for and the consequences of your actions.

 

[Michael Brown]

You got to elaborate on this a little for me...
As far as the ass whoop'n goes. Why would someone in uniform stand a better chance than someone not in uniform. I'm not insinuating you think the outfit gives super powers but what's the difference?
Being shot??? I can see that, given the time it would have taken you to reach the UC officer he probably could have easily drawn down on you before you reached him. I'm sure you being in uni probably kept him from doing that.

Because in hindsight, I am fairly certain that the undercover officer did NOT fight back. I caught him blind-sided without him seeing me coming and misinterpreted his attempt to identify himself as a threat.

His cover team got there and quickly identified him before he got shot.

Now, imagine if that had been a citizen:

Would the cover team fire on a guy holding a UC at gunpoint?

Would they start putting the boots to the guy who just Terry Tate'd their partner?

The likely answer is "yes" because all they see is a guy beating on an undercover cop or pointing a gun at an undercover cop.

Someone in uniform is readily identifiable; Anyone else is not.

As Werewolf detailed above, you better be DAMN certain before you take action in a situation you don't have a personal interest in if you are not paid by the citizenry to stop crimes.

Michael Brown

 

[bmwguy25]

This law will be lose lose. No knock warrants are dangerous but even if they have the wrong house and you start to open fire I'd expect fatalities on both sides

 

[AllOut]

Because in hindsight, I am fairly certain that the undercover officer did NOT fight back. I caught him blind-sided without him seeing me coming and misinterpreted his attempt to identify himself as a threat.

His cover team got there and quickly identified him before he got shot.

Now, imagine if that had been a citizen:

Would the cover team fire on a guy holding a UC at gunpoint?

Would they start putting the boots to the guy who just Terry Tate'd their partner?

The likely answer is "yes" because all they see is a guy beating on an undercover cop or pointing a gun at an undercover cop.

Someone in uniform is readily identifiable; Anyone else is not.

As Werewolf detailed above, you better be DAMN certain before you take action in a situation you don't have a personal interest in if you are not paid by the citizenry to stop crimes.

Michael Brown

Gotcha...
I didn't take into consideration his "back up" being the the ones to commence with the ass whoop'n lol
Great story BTW

I totally agree with not getting involved in that type of situation if you don't already have some sort of personal involvement in it (friend, family, Yourself etc). A lot of people that knew for 100% what was going on still have ended up being wrong. Unless it would have been a young child, then I don't think I could have just stood by and watched.

 

[MLR]

ndiana Governor Mitch Daniels signed a state law this year that allows residents to use deadly force in response to the “unlawful intrusion” by a “public servant” to protect themselves and others, or their property

I do not see a problem with this law. The law only allows deadly force to be used when an illegal entry is being made. This is the same argument that was used when castle law was being discussed. The anti's claimed that citizens would be opening fire on everyone who came to their door. It didn't happen but now they are using it again claiming that everyone will be shooting any cop that comes to the door.

The castle law does not allow the shooting of innocent people and this law does not change that. What it does do is to say that working for the government can not be used as a shield to protect a person who is committing illegal acts.

Michael

 

[Bobrob]

Amazing. I find this statement to be both dangerous and foolish and one of a larger set of reasons why we have such an "us" and "them" mentality in this country towards law enforcement these days. Officers these days believe that because they have a gun and a badge and that they are on the clock that they are the baddest cats prowling the streets. There was a time when some of the older looking guys just ambling by were not. They grew up with John Wayne, family values and a strong belief in duty. They wanted to right the wrongs in the world and went to whatever hellhole they were sent. They listened to their uncle and did what he said. They were not in the movies or used as political pawns for the politicians. They trained hard and became good at their jobs. So, if what you have stated is true, and that an UC officer allowed a patrol unit to see the incident, identify what was happening, brake to a halt, put the vehicle in park, exit the vehicle, allow you to RUN AT HIM, tackle him and punch him in the face without identifiying himself as a UC, he is going to somehow be able to kick some older guys ass or shoot him for trying to stop the same seen action? If this action was seen by some older gentleman who thought he might still be able to right a wrong and balance some of his past transgretions, he would be moving to end the incident, not identify the guy or arrest anyone.

No country for old men........

 

[Crosstimbers Okie]

Unlawful vs. incorrect arrest: There have been cases of LEOs committing crimes under color of law vs. arrests that are incorrect under law either because of the officer's ignorance of the law or his misunderstanding of the facts or circumstances of the situation. The first you have a right and a duty to resist as it amounts to nothing more than a criminal act by someone who happens to be employed as a LEO. The second you don't because the officer is acting in good faith in an effort to enforce the law. Failing to resist the first may get you killed. Failing to resist the second may get you inconvenienced.

 

[aestus]

Thoughts?

http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/18/ninth-circuit-to-dea-putting-a-gun-to-an

At 7 a.m. on January 20, 2007, DEA agents battered down the door to Thomas and Rosalie Avina’s mobile home in Seeley, California, in search of suspected drug trafficker Louis Alvarez. Thomas Avina met the agents in his living room and told them they were making a mistake. Shouting “Don’t you ****ing move,” the agents forced Thomas Avina to the floor at gunpoint, and handcuffed him and his wife, who had been lying on a couch in the living room. As the officers made their way to the back of the house, where the Avina’s 11-year-old and 14-year-old daughters were sleeping, Rosalie Avina screamed, “Don’t hurt my babies. Don’t hurt my babies.”

The agents entered the 14-year-old girl’s room first, shouting “Get down on the ****ing ground.” The girl, who was lying on her bed, rolled onto the floor, where the agents handcuffed her. Next they went to the 11-year-old’s room. The girl was sleeping. Agents woke her up by shouting “Get down on the ****ing ground.” The girl’s eyes shot open, but she was, according to her own testimony, “frozen in fear.” So the agents dragged her onto the floor. While one agent handcuffed her, another held a gun to her head.

Moments later the two daughters were carried into the living room and placed next to their parents on the floor while DEA agents ransacked their home. After 30 minutes, the agents removed the children’s handcuffs. After two hours, the agents realized they had the wrong house-the product of a sloppy license plate transcription-and left.

In 2008, the Avinas-mom, dad, and both daughters-filed a federal suit against the DEA for excessive use of force, assault, and battery in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. That court ruled in favor of the DEA, and the Avinas appealed. Last week, the family got justice.

While the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals defended the agents' rough treatment of Thomas and Rosalie, it also declared that yanking the Avina children of their beds and putting guns to their heads did, in fact, constitute the “intentional infliction of emotional distress.”

(Read the Obama administration's defense of the DEA agents.)

"A jury could find that the agents pointed their guns at the head of an eleven-year-old girl, 'like they were going to shoot [her],' while she lay on the floor in handcuffs, and that it was excessive for them to do so," reads the Ninth Circuit's decision, which was filed June 12. "Similarly, a jury could find that the agents’ decision to force the two girls to lie face down on the floor with their hands cuffed behind their backs was unreasonable."

More from the decision:

Under our case law, an issue of material fact exists as to whether the actions of the agents were excessive in light of the ages of B.S.A. (age eleven) and B.F.A. (age fourteen) and the limited threat they posed. See Tekle, 511 F.3d 839 (holding that officers were not entitled to summary judgment on excessive force claim where officers pointed guns at an eleven-year-old boy’s head during the arrest of the boy’s father); Motley v. Parks, 432 F.3d 1072, 1089 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (holding that officer’s act of pointing a gun at an infant during the search of a gang member’s house was objectively unreasonable); see also McDonald ex rel. McDonald v. Haskins, 966 F.2d 292, 294-95 (7th Cir. 1992) (holding that officer’s act of pointing his gun at a nine-year-old’s head during the search of home was excessive use of force). Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States on B.F.A.’s and B.S.A.’s claims for assault and battery.

In a footnote, the court wrote:

Although there is evidence that the agents released the girls from their handcuffs once they realized how young they were, there is also evidence that the agents knew, prior to entering the girls’ bedrooms, that the girls were children. Rosalie testified that, as the agents were heading towards the girls’ rooms, she screamed at the agents several times, “Don’t hurt my babies.” Moreover, one of the agents testified at his deposition that, when he first saw one of the girls (presumably the older of the two girls), she appeared to be “12 [or] 13 years old.”

The ruling concludes:

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Avinas, a rational trier of fact could find that agents engaged in “extreme or outrageous” conduct when the agents: (1) pointed their guns at the head of eleven-year-old B.S.A. “like they were going to shoot [her]” while B.S.A. was lying on the floor in handcuffs; (2) forced eleven-year-old B.S.A. and fourteen-year-old B.F.A. to lie face down on the floor with their hands cuffed behind their backs; (3) left B.S.A. and B.F.A. in handcuffs for half an hour; and (4) yelled at eleven-year-old B.S.A. and fourteen-year-old B.F.A. to “[g]et down on the f[uck]ing ground.” See Tekle, 511 F.3d at 856 (holding that officers were not entitled to summary judgment on claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress where officers pointed guns at eleven-year old’s head during the arrest of the eleven-year-old’s father); see also id. at 859 (Fisher, J., concurring). Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States on B.F.A.’s and B.S.A.’s claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

As a side note: While this raid was conducted under President George W. Bush, the deputy administrator of the DEA at that time was Michele Leonhart. She is now the administrator of the DEA, thanks to an appointment by President Barack Obama. Furthermore, the Obama Administration could have declined to defend the DEA in this case. Instead, Obama's Justice Department has decided to make the case that federal agents should be allowed to hold guns to the heads of children.

 

[Dave70968]

Unfortunately, that would probably be a lawful entry--the DEA agents had a warrant for that address. Granted, some careless or illiterate officer copied the address incorrectly from another source, resulting in the warrant specifying a different house than intended, but if the warrant matches the house raided, the officers entering aren't breaking the law.

And, for Bonus Fun Points, qualified immunity will protect the person who did screw up from ever having to be accountable to the people who were terrorized as a result of his incompetence.