ACLU Says: Don't Try To Stop Police If They Force Their Way In To Your Home

[better-dead-than-fed]

If an officer wants to enter your home, ask to see the warrant. If the officer does not have one, you do not have to let him in. But don’t try to stop him if he forces his way in.

https://www.aclum.org/sites/all/files/education/kyr_may_2013.pdf

Hey ACLU, if police try to murder us, should we not try to stop that either?

A link to this thread has been sent to https://twitter.com/ACLU_Mass

[dannno]

Well I probably wouldn't try and stop police if they forced their way into my home, but I don't think it is immoral to try and stop them. I don't think the ACLU is saying it is immoral to do it, just that they recommend the route of fighting it in court. I don't know much about court, but I would prefer the option of staying alive I think.

[kathy88]

Hard to go to court when you're dead. I'm just sayin'.

[angelatc]

It's hard to go to court, period. Once in a while the little guy will happen to catch the eye of the public and/or an attorney who doesn't mind going head to head with the state, but most of the time the police get to do anything they want because they know the odds of them facing any repercussions are pretty slim for that reason.

[TonySutton]

It all boils down to 1 of 2 choices. Do you want to be rich or do you want your heirs to be rich?

[PaulConventionWV]

Unfortunately, they're probably right. It would not end well.

[PaulConventionWV]

It all boils down to 1 of 2 choices. Do you want to be rich or do you want your heirs to be rich?

Ummmm, sorry? Could you explain that?

[tod evans]

It's time to take away governments printing presses and their "scary black guns"...

Without those two things there'd be very minimal door kickin' going on....

[jllundqu]

Supreme court already ruled it is LAWFUL to resist an unlawful arrest... someone please find the case law...

[tod evans]

Supreme court already ruled it is LAWFUL to resist an unlawful arrest... someone please find the case law...

It's really difficult to argue unlawful arrest after a bunch of thugs just emptied their MP-5's in your general direction...:eek:

[Anti Federalist]

If they bust in and decide to rape your daughter, well, better just let them finish up, clean off the spunk and await your "day in court".

Where 20 fellow "officers" will all swear, before Almighty God, that you were dealing crack and it was one of your crackhead buddies that raped her.

Better break that conditioning folks...they will follow orders.

Especially when following orders will ensure a full pantry, gas for the cruiser and heat on a cold winter night.

[aGameOfThrones]

Ummmm, sorry? Could you explain that?


Don't resist and sue, or resist and your family members sue.

[torchbearer]

Don't resist and sue, or resist and your family members sue.
math problem:

if two cops died for every one door they knocked down, how long could they continue to knock down doors until there were no more cops?

[juleswin]

Lol, they are correct, you dont believe them? then give it a try and see what happens to you. I think the only time you should try and stop the police is if they are trying to kill you :(.

Anything else? you deal with it and try your chance with the courts.

[tod evans]

I think the only time you should try and stop the police is if they are trying to kill you :(.


So if 25 of 'em come to the house dressed in battle gear bearing fully automatic weapons which one do I ask if they're there to kill me?

[torchbearer]

Lol, they are correct, you dont believe them? then give it a try and see what happens to you. I think the only time you should try and stop the police is if they are trying to kill you :(.

Anything else? you deal with it and try your chance with the courts.


i think we can run some game theory analysist with hard data, and figure out both short term and long term optimum solutions.
my solution would definitely be the optimum outcome of a long term game theory analysis of this situation.
short term, i'd still want to see how the data lays out.

[Carson]

Maybe the key word is, "try"?



This may be pretty good advise from the article from a legal standpoint.


•
You
are
NOT
required
to
allow
the
officer
into
your
home
without
a
warrant.
If an officer wants to enter your home, ask to see the warrant.
If the officer does not have one, you do not have to let him in. But don’t try to stop him if
he forces his way in. Simply state that he does not have your permission to enter.

[aGameOfThrones]

math problem:

if two cops died for every one door they knocked down, how long could they continue to knock down doors until there were no more cops?

They'll use weapons grade police robots for mundane search warrants.

http://r1.cygnuspub.com/files/cygnus/image/OFCR/2013/APR/600x400/swatvehicle_10924245.jpg

[torchbearer]

They'll use weapons grade police robots for mundane search warrants.

http://r1.cygnuspub.com/files/cygnus/image/OFCR/2013/APR/600x400/swatvehicle_10924245.jpg

you notice the shielding doesn't go all the way around?
i got something for that too.
also, since police procedure is predictable, i've thought of a dozen different ways to trap pigs.

[tod evans]

Big cities have all kinds of neat toys, just look at Bahston....

Maybe they should just get on with it and thin the heard some....

Us country folk without the cool toys will wait for the victors to get hungry....



They'll use weapons grade police robots for mundane search warrants.

http://r1.cygnuspub.com/files/cygnus/image/OFCR/2013/APR/600x400/swatvehicle_10924245.jpg

[pcosmar]

They'll use weapons grade police robots for mundane search warrants.

http://r1.cygnuspub.com/files/cygnus/image/OFCR/2013/APR/600x400/swatvehicle_10924245.jpg

Does not look very fire resistant.

[ClydeCoulter]

So, just put up yer hands and hope them that's a bustin' down yer door are good guys and don't taze or shoot ye or yer wife 'n kidz? Think I've read 'bout some peoplez bein' shot fur havin' a re-mote con-troll and stuff like that.

where's that video from 1989 or so of Ron Paul talking about the guy getting shot for having a remote control, here in America.

edit: It was 1988 Morton Downey Jr show


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_m0p-Xt5r0

edit: This is the longer version, it sets up the context just prior.

[RickyJ]

Do you notice many cops always go after people that they assume won't fight back, they wouldn't dare go after the mob the same way and live to tell about it.

[ghengis86]

Does not look very fire resistant.

Your tractor(s); diesel?

[pcosmar]

Your tractor(s); diesel?

Mine is dead. :(

But many are diesel.
http://www.heavy.com/news/2012/08/pissed-pothead-farmer-crushes-7-cop-cars-with-tractor/

As for myself,, I have never resisted arrest in the past. And I have been arrested a few times. And for a serious offense.

I have no locks on my doors and am involved in NO criminal activity. And I am unarmed.
If this shit comes,, I hope to not be caught in the house.
But given the choice of several bad choices,, I may just take my chances and take a couple with me.

ya'all will have to make choices of your own.

[DGambler]

Your post makes me wonder, how many people on this site have been arrested. I have once and the court experience raised my eyebrows.


Mine is dead. :(

But many are diesel.
http://www.heavy.com/news/2012/08/pissed-pothead-farmer-crushes-7-cop-cars-with-tractor/

As for myself,, I have never resisted arrest in the past. And I have been arrested a few times. And for a serious offense.

I have no locks on my doors and am involved in NO criminal activity. And I am unarmed.
If this shit comes,, I hope to not be caught in the house.
But given the choice of several bad choices,, I may just take my chances and take a couple with me.

ya'all will have to make choices of your own.

[TruckinMike]

It all boils down to 1 of 2 choices. Do you want to be rich or do you want your heirs to be rich?

I was going to quote Solzhenitsyn until i read that. Ha Ha ... :)

[AFPVet]

In my state, if they illegally force their way into your home, you are legally able to defend yourself.

[better-dead-than-fed]

In my state, if they illegally force their way into your home, you are legally able to defend yourself.

I imagine the law permits such self-defense in most states. The ACLU should clarify why they're advising people to waive their right to lawful self-defense.

[JK/SEA]

Always try and have fresh donuts in the house, becuz ya just never know.

[Anti Federalist]

Your post makes me wonder, how many people on this site have been arrested. I have once and the court experience raised my eyebrows.

Raises hand.

[AFPVet]

Always try and have fresh donuts in the house, becuz ya just never know.

... these new guys don't care about donuts... that was my era ;) This new generation of 'enforcers' want roids and other drugs.

[JK/SEA]

... these new guys don't care about donuts... that was my era ;) This new generation of 'enforcers' want roids and other drugs.

noted. Donuts w/drugs inside. Fresh daily.

[tod evans]

In my state, if they illegally force their way into your home, you are legally able to defend yourself.


It's really difficult to argue unlawful arrest after a bunch of thugs just emptied their MP-5's in your general direction...:eek:

So when the goon squad shows up do you assume they're there illegally or try to talk sense?

[Christian Liberty]

If they bust in and decide to rape your daughter, well, better just let them finish up, clean off the spunk and await your "day in court".

Where 20 fellow "officers" will all swear, before Almighty God, that you were dealing crack and it was one of your crackhead buddies that raped her.

Better break that conditioning folks...they will follow orders.

Especially when following orders will ensure a full pantry, gas for the cruiser and heat on a cold winter night.

I believe Chuck Baldwin has literally had a pastor tell him that if the cops try to rape your wife you can't legitimately stop them because of Romans 13. Which is a ridiculous application of that text.

[tod evans]

This might be appropriate;


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O36luh8nx9I

[Weston White]

Ah, of course, the American Constitutional and Liberties Usurpation (ACLU) would make such an asinine statement. There are a ton of great quotes from a tiny book entitled: “The Second Amendment”, David Barton, 2000. Here are some that are on-point in relation to this thread:


“The Supreme Being gave existence to man, together with the means of preserving and beautifying that existence. He … invested him [man] with an inviolable right to personal liberty and personal safety.”
(Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted: Or, A More Impartial and Comprehensive View of the Dispute Between Great Britain and the Colonies (New York: James Rivington, 1775), p.6 [fn. 22])

“Rights [are] antecedent to all earthly government; Rights … cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights [are] derived from the greater Legislator of the universe.”
(John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, Editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown), 1851 [fn. 20])

“[Government] is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties and to take none of them from us.”
(Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, Vol. IV, p. 278, to Francis Tilmer on June 7, 1816 [fn. 21])

“…to acquire a new security for the possession or the recovery of those rights to … which we were previously entitled by the immediate gift or by the unerring law of all-wise and all-beneficent Creator. . . . …every government which has not this in view as its principal object is not a government of the legitimate kind.”
(Justice James Wilson, Works, Vol. II, pp. 454, 466 [fn. 18, 19])

“The… right of the [citizens] that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense… [This is] the natural right of resistance and self-preservation when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression. . . . [T]o vindicate these rights when actually violated or attacked, the [citizens] are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next, to the right of petitioning the [government], for redress of grievances; and lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense.”
(William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws (Philadelphia: Robert Bell, 1771), Vol. I, pp. 143-144 [fn. 25])

“Homicide is enjoined [required] when it is necessary for the defense of one’s person or house. . . . [I]t is the great natural law of self-preservation which, as we have seen, cannot be repealed or superseded or suspended by any human institution. This law, however, is expressly recognized in the constitution of Pennsylvania: ‘The right of the citizens to bear arms in the defense of themselves shall not be questioned.’ . . . [E]very man’s house is deemed, by the law, to be his castle; and the law, while it invests him with the power, [places] on him the duty of the commanding officer [of his house]. ‘Every man’s house is his castle … and if any one be robbed in it, it shall be esteemed his own default and negligence.’”
(Justice James Wilson, Works, Vol. III, pp. 84-85 [fn. 26])

“[S]elf-defense, or self-preservation, is one of the first laws of nature, which no man ever resigned upon entering into society.”
(Zephaniah Swift, A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut (Windham: John Byrne, 1796), Vol. II, p. 302; see also Vol. II, p. 2 [fn. 27])

“The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
(Blackstone’s Commentaries: With Notes and Reference, St. George Tucker, Editor (Philadelphia: William Young Birch, and Abraham Small, 1803), Vol. I, p. 300 [fn. 28])

“In the Second [Amendment], it is declared … that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could, by any rule of construction, be conceived to give the Congress a power to disarm the people. A flagitious [flagrantly wicked] attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a State legislature. But if, in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either [the State or federal government] should attempt it, this Amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”
(William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, second edition (Philadelphia: Philip H. Nicklin, 1829), pp.125-126 [fn. 29])

“The municipal law of our … country has likewise left with individuals the exercise of the natural right of self-defense. … The right of self-defense … is founded in the law of nature, and is not, and cannot be, superseded by the law of society.”
(James Kent, Commentaries on American Law (New York: O. Halsted, 1827), Vol. II, p. 12, “On the Absolute Rights of Persons.” [fn. 32])

“The next amendment is: ‘A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.‘ The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons who have duly reflected upon the subject. . . . The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rules; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. . . . There is certainly no small danger that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt, and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national Bill of Rights.”
(Story, Commentaries, Vol. III, pp. 746-747, Sects. 1889 and 1890 [fn. 34])

“[T]he law of self-preservation …is indeed familiarly styled the first law of nature . . . [It] is recognized, sub modo, by the laws of every civilized country. . . . The right of self-defense, (and with it of self-preservation), may, without danger of controversy, therefore, be laid down as the first law of nature. Nor is it … lost by entering into society.”
(Henry St. George Tucker, A Few Lectures of the United States (Charlottesville: James Alexander, 1844), pp. 10-11 [fn. 35])

“The Second Amendment read thus: ‘A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ This prohibition indicates that the security of against the tyrannical tendency of government is only to be found in the right of the people to keep and bear arms in resisting the wrongs of government.’”
(John Randolph Tucker, The Constitution of the United States, Henry St. George Tucker, Editor (Chicago: Callaghan & Co., 1899), Vol. II, p.671, 25 [fn. 36])

“Resistance to sudden violence for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I never surrendered to the public by the compact of society and which, perhaps, I could not surrender if I would. . . . [T]he maxims of the law and the precepts of Christianity are precisely coincident in relation to this subject.”
(John Adams, “On Private Revenge”, Boston Gazette, September 5, 1763 [fn. 38])

“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly, to property – together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.”
(Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo Cushing, Editor (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1906), Vol. II, p. 351, from “The Rights of Colonists, A List of Violations Of Rights and A Letter of Correspondence, Adopted by the Town of Boston, November 20, 1772”, Boston Record Commissioners’ Report”, Vol. XVIII, pp.94-108 [fn. 39])

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give that force, you are inevitably ruined.”
(Debates and Other Proceedings of the Convention of the Convention of Virginia, David Robinson, Editor (Richmond: Ritchie & Worsley and Augustine Davis, 1805), p. 275, Patrick Henry on June 14, 1788; see also The Debates in the Several State Conventions, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787, Jonathan Elliot, Editor (Washington: Printed for the Editor, 1836), Vol. III, p. 386 [fn. 42])

“And what country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?”
(Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, Vol. II, p. 268, to Colonel Smith on November 13, 1787 [fn. 45])

“Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great-Britain, the British parliament was advised… to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually.”
(Debates … of the Convention of Virginia, p. 270, George Mason on June 14, 1788; see also Elliot’s Debates, Vol. III, p. 380 [fn. 50])

“I consider and fear the natural propensity of rulers to oppress the people. I wish only to prevent them from doing evil. . . . Divine providence has given to every individual the means of self-defense.”
(Debates … of the Convention of Virginia, p. 271, George Mason on June 14, 1788; see also Elliot’s Debates, Vol. III, p. 381 [fn. 51])

“It [is] a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved. How is an army for that purpose to. … subdue a nation of freemen who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?”
(Debates … of Massachusetts, Held in the Year 1788, p. 198, Theodore Sedgwick on January 24, 1788; see also Elliot’s Debates, Vol. II, p. 97 [fn. 55])

“[N]o man should scruple or hesitate a moment to use arms in defense.”
(George Washington, Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1931), Vol. II, p. 501, letter to George Mason on April 5, 1769 [fn. 57])