Should people be allowed to defend themselves against police?

Police have absolute people, to subdue, harm, maim, and even kill for little reason. The police officers who do kill without justification are often placed on "administrative leave" and given a desk job. Police can kick down the door of the wrong address (without announcing themselves or giving the resident time to answer the door, fundamental violation of the Castle Doctrine), storm the house, and execute the resident who believes it is a home invasion.

Well, it is a home invasion. But instead of street thugs, their rights are trampled by statist swine. What punishment is the executioner given? A paid vacation, and maybe a desk job. If you or I (or any of the peasants really) did the same, we would be on death row. The statists kill the peasants and no one cares.

Should peasants have the fundamental right to defend themselves against police? Should the police be demilitarized (why do we need soldiers on patrol on US streets)? Is 80,000 SWAT raids a year excessive?

[video=youtube_share;XIad1JAnEkI]http://youtu.be/XIad1JAnEkI[/video]

 

The authoritarians here will tell you that you should just submit to whatever you are told to do by a police officer, even if it involves a beating, sexual assault or the killing of your animals and theft of your property. It's no different than some people telling women that they should just submit to the rape rather than risk injury by fending off an attacker.

It is only recently that the common law right to resist unlawful arrest has been trampled upon. That also includes the common law right to self-defense.

Your safety and well-being is trumped by "officer safety" and should you try to protect your safety or well-being, you are guilty of a crime against the state.

 

I heard of a case in the US where a police department get a quota of drug-releated arrests to make in order to recieve extra money from the federal government. So what they do is pass that onto the police officers by letting them get a raise if the fill the quota, and they just made up a drug case by asking some known criminal to make up an adress which they could use. So he told an adress, which was that of an old lady's. The police went there to batter the door as per the rules when going into a supposed 'drug den', and the lady of course thought it was a home invasion and got her gun. So the lady was shot by the police, who later planted weed in her house and claimed she had opened fire.

And another case is with some scanners at airports which were supposedly for security, but it didn't detect metal or expoliseves or anything like that. Instead it just took a nude image of who ever passed through, and all the images were kept and could be accessed by staff. Basically just keeping a nude pic of everyone passing through the airport. And yeah, some excessive grabbing of boobs in the name of security also, from your grandma to your eight-year old daughter.

I probably remember those wrong, but the CATO insitute has good videos on police misconduct.

[video=youtube;sGbd-cm3bio]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGbd-cm3bio[/video]

However, In Sweden we don't really have the kind of police state you americans got. Au contraire, our police are to kind here; trying to have a 'culturally sensitive dialogue' with the stone throwing anarchists on our streets. We sure could use some harder policemen in that regard.

 

That happened here in Atlanta. The drug task force here was (is) corrupt as shiite.

 

Right, I believe they were called, "Red Dogs". I believe they disband them after they killed a 92yr old lady and tried to claim she was dealing drugs instead of admitting they raided the wrong house and wrongfully killed her.

 

They are allowed to defend themselves against the police if the police are doing something illegal - ex. if a person was stealing your car on your property, or robbing your home - then in a "castle doctrine" state you'd have a right to shoot them to protect yourself or your property - just because "they're a cop" wouldn't override the law. Sure some agencies might 'stick together' and try to turn the defender into the aggressor - but that's the way it is, and not gonna change - legally you are allowed to defend yourself from police

Legally they're required to identify themselves as police - if not they're breaking the law.

If the police believed their life was threatened, they have a right to defend themselves with lethal force - so unless they did not identify themselves as cops then there was no wrongdoing - in other words, accidents happen.

If the premise here is that cops might have an easier time covering it up or getting away with it even if they were in the wrong - well yeah that's possible, but it doesn't change that "the law" doesn't provide exemption for police.

 

They planted the drugs in her house! They got away with so much illegal activity it boggles the mind. But I guess that makes sense when you are the one investigating yourself. Whenever I hear that the police are investigating something the police allegedly did I always laugh and wait for the almost inevitable, "after investigation it was determined the police did not act in an illegal or improper manner". Of course they didn't.

 

Your right, if Ms. Johnson had been a 30yr old woman, they would have been able to pull it off.

 

EXCELLENT book!

A must read!

 

Britain has had its own fair share of corruption within the police. Here's just one example:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...blame-for-dozens-more-injustices-1120219.html

Each time a scandal threatened to break, senior officers suddenly began to retire to "spend more time with their families" in order to escape internal investigation. They are no longer immune from prosecution.

 

Sure you can defend yourself. But then you'll be dead. You'd never get your day in court to prove the cops were wrong.

 

Sadly, most African Americans already know this.

We need to keep an eye on what we have for local government and work to ensure they are promoting the best interests of the people.

That is our best bet and protection.

 

I don't think it's black or white or anything in between. If you try to defend yourself against cops, whatever your race, you'll get got.

 

It really comes down to whether or not self-defense against an agent of the state is a crime, or should be treated as a crime. Not everyone is killed trying to resist. Most aren't. However, many are being charged with "resisting arrest" and "assault on an officer" for doing what humans naturally do when they feel their lives and freedom are endangered.

 

Sincerely not meaning to be inflammatory, but has anyone here actually been in law enforcement? A voluntary career that entails possible injury or death in defense of people you have never met. In any large organization there are those who stray from the path and taint the good service of those around them simply by association. As for bungled raids, just as in our military, these are based almost entirely on intelligence, usually gathered and analyzed by groups of people with varying abilities and opinions, and we've all seen how that works out. As for the reaction to someone, anyone, nine to ninety nine, pointing a gun at you, please don't judge until it happens to you. Believe me, it ain't like TV! And yes, cops have been shot by ten year olds.

 

Although it's "unofficial," cops in this medium-sized city act on a quota basis. Naturally, they fulfill their quotas (justify their existence), by picking on "soft" targets such as white folks violating the most trivial of traffic laws.

The city also has a curfew designed to keep teenagers off the streets after 11 pm. The cops do not enforce the curfew in black neighborhoods. Instead, they go into the upscale white neighborhoods where they harass, threaten and bully teens who are leaning against their BMWs under street lights discussing college plans; the stock market; and their investment financial portfolios.

Daddy can't do anything about it because the mayor, city council and local elected judges ... are black!

 

I would like to present a scenario to illustrate my earlier post (which has not appeared as yet). I will wait a couple of days for responses and then give you the real life ending.
You are a police officer alone at 2:30 A.M. It is a common practice in your zone to patrol some areas without lights. You round the corner of a building and observe a vehicle, and barely visible in front of it (the only illumination is from weak vapor lighting) is a figure in a kneeling position pointing an object across an open field towards a roadway. There have been recent reports from neighboring communities of sniper attacks on passing cars. You draw your weapon and take a position behind your door, identify yourself and order the person to remain still and drop whatever they are holding. Of course the person turns toward you and you see he is holding a rifle stock with a large scope attached. What do you do? You have two seconds!

 

How many times per year do police officers encounter armed suspects? Any idea? Any at all?

 

If it were like TV, cops would be catching all of the criminals through careful police work, there would be thousands more officers killed on duty each year by armed criminals who are engaged in high profile robberies and tearing up streets with deadly chases.

It's not like TV. The police arent' there to serve and protect the people. They serve and protect the government, and they enforce the dictates of the political class. As more and more behavior becomes criminalized, though said behavior has no victims, it pits the police against private citizens and has made the police a militarized occupying class. The fact is, just by donning a uniform and violating the natural rights of peaceful human beings, they are engaged in immoral behavior, and the the more they harm people in furtherance of government goals, the more corrupt they become.

If we don't point out everything that is going on and get very loud about it now, it's only going to get a lot worse. So, you have a choice of what side to be one: pro-totalitarian, lick-the-hand-that-feeds-you,submit-and-obey, or be a freedom loving citizen who holds the government and it's enforcers accountable to protect your liberty from those who would commit force or fraud.

 

Blanket statements about police officers is ignoring that they take orders. Maybe you should be questioning the ethics of THOSE people then wonder where they're directed to make those orders you don't like...It's like when America held soldiers in Vietnam personally responsible for actions there rather than wondering why the government sent them there in the first place.

 

We all make choices.

- - - Updated - - -

Police make the choice to take on their job. Their choice is not my concern.

 

Wolvie it ought to be because damn enar every cop I know took that job to make this country a better and safer place to live. Police academys go to great lengths to weed out power trippers and other sorts of objectionable types. The cop's job is to enforce the law. If you don't like the law work to get that law changed. Until then (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about cops doing their jobs is just retarded. Do the wrong people occasionally get it yes. Is it common place? Not hardly. Any time someone gets shot the cop who pulled the trigger is placed on administrative leave until the investigation is complete. Probably 99% of the time the shooting is justified. The 1% get all the headlines.

Cop is one of the toughest damn jobs there is. You get a half a second to make a decision that will be second guessed by everyone for the next twenty years. Cops have high divorce rates, high suicide rates and low retention rates. The pay is decent once you make detective or if you work in a major city.
Dirty Harry wouldn't make sargeant in any major metropolitan police force. In fact he'd be lucky to make it to rookie.

 

What does your concern have to do with the question?

 

You question is from the position of "officer safety". People make a choice to be policie officers, my freedoms are not for sale to make their choice safer.

Their choice to be a police officer and the dangers involved in such professions is not my concern.

 

You still haven't answered the question. Do you only speak in rhetorical terms or can you answer a question straight?