When you surrender to the cops, are they legally obligated to yell "stop resisting" before firing?

[JakeStarkey]

They get in trouble all the time for violently entering the wrong homes and end up paying huge fines, get fired, and sometimes go to jail. Except for the cop who was killed along with five others who were wounded when entering violently the wrong home.

A cop can only use the least force necessary to enforce his business.

The cops in our town when I was a boy knew the rules and followed them, because they knew what would happen when they did not.

 

[Mad Scientist]

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

They get in trouble all the time for violently entering the wrong homes and end up paying huge fines, get fired, and sometimes go to jail. Except for the cop who was killed along with five others who were wounded when entering violently the wrong home.

A cop can only use the least force necessary to enforce his business.

Yes, they do, but that is getting in trouble for using excessive force. you are 100% correct, the police are SUPPOSED to use only as much force as necessary to affect an arrest (but such force can include up to lethal force)

People need to learn their rights, Good faith arrests or searches are those made by the police in error, but not due to the police acting incorrectly.

If something gets screwed up in the paperwork and the police search the wrong house and you shoot them (providing they are identifying themselves as they make entrance) then YOU are on the hook, not the police. They acted in good faith.

Here's the case law and such

Police Searches and the Good Faith Exception | Nolo.com

I mean I only did this for 24 years. What do I know.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Your post makes no sense whatsoever, but no if you are resisting arrest, the police are under no obligation to ask you to stop resisting before they MAKE you stop resisting, using whatever force is necessary to do so.

People are dumb and need to learn the law. Police are different than the average citizen, and CAN use force, including lethal force for more than just self defense.

...and citizens are legally allowed to use lethal force on cops if they illegally enter your home.

Correct, sort of.

Let's say a situation where you live at 1212 park lane and the police are serving a warrant on 1221 park lane and someone fucked up the warrant and put 1212 park lane and the cops enter your home yelling "police, police" and you shoot and kill one. you're guilty of murder. Because the police were acting on good faith. They thought they were serving a valid warrant.

no..it doesn't say anything about "good faith" or intent...it says if they enter your home illegally you can use deadly force.

Dude, if a cop accidentally enters the wrong house thinking he's making a legal entry, THAT IS NOT ILLEGAL.

It happens all the time. A affidavit is filled out wrong, numbers get transposed. Regrettably it happens, and when it does the police don't get in trouble for making an illegal entry, why? Because it isn't an illegal entry.

Now, the question of whether a person actually IS charged if they shoot a cop in those situations is largely a case by case decision, BUT the fact remains that you CAN be charged because the police did NOT act illegally.

If a cop enters the "wrong" house, that is an illegal entry...whatever the pretense/excuse/rationalization/intent.

You are 1000% wrong on that , just shut up while you are merely behind.

 

[Rotagilla]

They get in trouble all the time for violently entering the wrong homes and end up paying huge fines, get fired, and sometimes go to jail. Except for the cop who was killed along with five others who were wounded when entering violently the wrong home.

A cop can only use the least force necessary to enforce his business.

Yes, they do, but that is getting in trouble for using excessive force. you are 100% correct, the police are SUPPOSED to use only as much force as necessary to affect an arrest (but such force can include up to lethal force)

People need to learn their rights, Good faith arrests or searches are those made by the police in error, but not due to the police acting incorrectly.

If something gets screwed up in the paperwork and the police search the wrong house and you shoot them (providing they are identifying themselves as they make entrance) then YOU are on the hook, not the police. They acted in good faith.

Here's the case law and such

Police Searches and the Good Faith Exception | Nolo.com

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/invalid-police-searches-the-good-faith-exception.html


Thanks for the link. I learned a couple of things...I did see this paragraph in there, though;


Some states, interpreting their own laws rather than the federal Constitution, choose not to apply the good faith exception. Some resort to it only under limited circumstances, while others flatly reject it. (The U.S. Constitution sets a minimum standard for protecting individual liberty—states are free to provide more protection pursuant to their own constitutions.)

I mean I only did this for 24 years. What do I know.

couldn't find honest work?

 

[Darkwind]

This is something I've been wondering for a while now too. Let's say you're returning from a job interview and choose to take the scenic route home through the rich side of town. You're wearing a white button down shirt, a tie, khakis, and dress shoes. An old woman happens to see you and calls the police. You have no idea until a police cruiser rolls up behind you. You turn around just in time to see the officer get out and ask you what you're doing. You tell him you just interviewed for a job and you're walking home. He asks you if you've been casing any houses. You ask what he means.

A second cruiser pulls up but this new cop is remaining inside. You can just barely see him on the radio. The first cop tells you that the area you're in has recently had a rash of break ins and you were reported as a suspicious individual. It turns out that the individual who reported you did so because she had never seen you before. You deny all charges just as the second cop gets out of the car. He walks towards you with his hand on the grip of his gun and demands to know what the bulge in your pocket is. You tell him it's a bar of deodorant because it's a hot day and you wanted to smell good for your interview. He tells you to pull it out and show him. You move your hand to your pocket and immediately both weapons are trained between your eyes. You shoot your hands above your head and tell them you're unarmed.

Are they legally required to yell "stop resisting" before taking your worthless thug* ass out, or will that just be a formality?

*Because you know that's exactly how Fox is going to defend it, especially if you're black.

So, when did the Alpha Centenarian's show up?

Your little fantasy scenario is chock full of nonsense. IN the first place, the cop would ask you for your drivers license, registration, and insurance. He would then return to his car and run your name and auto plates.

If nothing came back, he would then....maybe.....ask you what reason you had for being in the neighborhood. If he noticed a bulge in your jacket, he'd ask you to step from the car and place you against it while he searched you. HE WOULD NOT ask you to remove it from your jacket. The second cop that shows up is for his AND your protection, and neither would draw a weapon on you unless you attacked them, or tried to run.

Next time, make up a plausible scenario....

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

They get in trouble all the time for violently entering the wrong homes and end up paying huge fines, get fired, and sometimes go to jail. Except for the cop who was killed along with five others who were wounded when entering violently the wrong home.

A cop can only use the least force necessary to enforce his business.

Yes, they do, but that is getting in trouble for using excessive force. you are 100% correct, the police are SUPPOSED to use only as much force as necessary to affect an arrest (but such force can include up to lethal force)

People need to learn their rights, Good faith arrests or searches are those made by the police in error, but not due to the police acting incorrectly.

If something gets screwed up in the paperwork and the police search the wrong house and you shoot them (providing they are identifying themselves as they make entrance) then YOU are on the hook, not the police. They acted in good faith.

Here's the case law and such

Police Searches and the Good Faith Exception | Nolo.com

Thanks for the link. I learned a couple of things...I did see this paragraph in there, though;


Some states, interpreting their own laws rather than the federal Constitution, choose not to apply the good faith exception. Some resort to it only under limited circumstances, while others flatly reject it. (The U.S. Constitution sets a minimum standard for protecting individual liberty—states are free to provide more protection pursuant to their own constitutions.)

I mean I only did this for 24 years. What do I know.

couldn't find honest work?

Dude, I was a military cop and served in THREE wars.

I mean I don't really mind that you disparage my service, but I have a lot of dead brothers and sisters who don't deserve that kind of insult just because you got your feelers hurt on the internet.

 

[Rotagilla]

They get in trouble all the time for violently entering the wrong homes and end up paying huge fines, get fired, and sometimes go to jail. Except for the cop who was killed along with five others who were wounded when entering violently the wrong home.

A cop can only use the least force necessary to enforce his business.

Yes, they do, but that is getting in trouble for using excessive force. you are 100% correct, the police are SUPPOSED to use only as much force as necessary to affect an arrest (but such force can include up to lethal force)

People need to learn their rights, Good faith arrests or searches are those made by the police in error, but not due to the police acting incorrectly.

If something gets screwed up in the paperwork and the police search the wrong house and you shoot them (providing they are identifying themselves as they make entrance) then YOU are on the hook, not the police. They acted in good faith.

Here's the case law and such

Police Searches and the Good Faith Exception | Nolo.com

Thanks for the link. I learned a couple of things...I did see this paragraph in there, though;


Some states, interpreting their own laws rather than the federal Constitution, choose not to apply the good faith exception. Some resort to it only under limited circumstances, while others flatly reject it. (The U.S. Constitution sets a minimum standard for protecting individual liberty—states are free to provide more protection pursuant to their own constitutions.)

I mean I only did this for 24 years. What do I know.

couldn't find honest work?

Dude, I was a military cop and served in THREE wars.

I mean I don't really mind that you disparage my service, but I have a lot of dead brothers and sisters who don't deserve that kind of insult just because you got your feelers hurt on the internet.

"dude"...I was making a joke about career cops...I can't know you were MP or how many wars you were in....stand down.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

They get in trouble all the time for violently entering the wrong homes and end up paying huge fines, get fired, and sometimes go to jail. Except for the cop who was killed along with five others who were wounded when entering violently the wrong home.

A cop can only use the least force necessary to enforce his business.

Yes, they do, but that is getting in trouble for using excessive force. you are 100% correct, the police are SUPPOSED to use only as much force as necessary to affect an arrest (but such force can include up to lethal force)

People need to learn their rights, Good faith arrests or searches are those made by the police in error, but not due to the police acting incorrectly.

If something gets screwed up in the paperwork and the police search the wrong house and you shoot them (providing they are identifying themselves as they make entrance) then YOU are on the hook, not the police. They acted in good faith.

Here's the case law and such

Police Searches and the Good Faith Exception | Nolo.com

Thanks for the link. I learned a couple of things...I did see this paragraph in there, though;


Some states, interpreting their own laws rather than the federal Constitution, choose not to apply the good faith exception. Some resort to it only under limited circumstances, while others flatly reject it. (The U.S. Constitution sets a minimum standard for protecting individual liberty—states are free to provide more protection pursuant to their own constitutions.)

I mean I only did this for 24 years. What do I know.

couldn't find honest work?

Dude, I was a military cop and served in THREE wars.

I mean I don't really mind that you disparage my service, but I have a lot of dead brothers and sisters who don't deserve that kind of insult just because you got your feelers hurt on the internet.

"dude"...I was making a joke about career cops...I can't know you were MP or how many wars you were in....stand down.

Well, go ******* walk a beat if career cop is such a fake job or whatever.

Or **** off, whichever.

 

[PredFan]

This is something I've been wondering for a while now too. Let's say you're returning from a job interview and choose to take the scenic route home through the rich side of town. You're wearing a white button down shirt, a tie, khakis, and dress shoes. An old woman happens to see you and calls the police. You have no idea until a police cruiser rolls up behind you. You turn around just in time to see the officer get out and ask you what you're doing. You tell him you just interviewed for a job and you're walking home. He asks you if you've been casing any houses. You ask what he means.

A second cruiser pulls up but this new cop is remaining inside. You can just barely see him on the radio. The first cop tells you that the area you're in has recently had a rash of break ins and you were reported as a suspicious individual. It turns out that the individual who reported you did so because she had never seen you before. You deny all charges just as the second cop gets out of the car. He walks towards you with his hand on the grip of his gun and demands to know what the bulge in your pocket is. You tell him it's a bar of deodorant because it's a hot day and you wanted to smell good for your interview. He tells you to pull it out and show him. You move your hand to your pocket and immediately both weapons are trained between your eyes. You shoot your hands above your head and tell them you're unarmed.

Are they legally required to yell "stop resisting" before taking your worthless thug* ass out, or will that just be a formality?

*Because you know that's exactly how Fox is going to defend it, especially if you're black.

Oh for Christ's sake this is one of the contenders for stupidest post of the day.

 

[Rotagilla]

They get in trouble all the time for violently entering the wrong homes and end up paying huge fines, get fired, and sometimes go to jail. Except for the cop who was killed along with five others who were wounded when entering violently the wrong home.

A cop can only use the least force necessary to enforce his business.

Yes, they do, but that is getting in trouble for using excessive force. you are 100% correct, the police are SUPPOSED to use only as much force as necessary to affect an arrest (but such force can include up to lethal force)

People need to learn their rights, Good faith arrests or searches are those made by the police in error, but not due to the police acting incorrectly.

If something gets screwed up in the paperwork and the police search the wrong house and you shoot them (providing they are identifying themselves as they make entrance) then YOU are on the hook, not the police. They acted in good faith.

Here's the case law and such

Police Searches and the Good Faith Exception | Nolo.com

Thanks for the link. I learned a couple of things...I did see this paragraph in there, though;


Some states, interpreting their own laws rather than the federal Constitution, choose not to apply the good faith exception. Some resort to it only under limited circumstances, while others flatly reject it. (The U.S. Constitution sets a minimum standard for protecting individual liberty—states are free to provide more protection pursuant to their own constitutions.)

I mean I only did this for 24 years. What do I know.

couldn't find honest work?

Dude, I was a military cop and served in THREE wars.

I mean I don't really mind that you disparage my service, but I have a lot of dead brothers and sisters who don't deserve that kind of insult just because you got your feelers hurt on the internet.

"dude"...I was making a joke about career cops...I can't know you were MP or how many wars you were in....stand down.

Well, go ******* walk a beat if career cop is such a fake job or whatever.

Or **** off, whichever.

I can tell you're a cop now....insecure, angry and aggressive...

 

[peach174]

This is something I've been wondering for a while now too. Let's say you're returning from a job interview and choose to take the scenic route home through the rich side of town. You're wearing a white button down shirt, a tie, khakis, and dress shoes. An old woman happens to see you and calls the police. You have no idea until a police cruiser rolls up behind you. You turn around just in time to see the officer get out and ask you what you're doing. You tell him you just interviewed for a job and you're walking home. He asks you if you've been casing any houses. You ask what he means.

A second cruiser pulls up but this new cop is remaining inside. You can just barely see him on the radio. The first cop tells you that the area you're in has recently had a rash of break ins and you were reported as a suspicious individual. It turns out that the individual who reported you did so because she had never seen you before. You deny all charges just as the second cop gets out of the car. He walks towards you with his hand on the grip of his gun and demands to know what the bulge in your pocket is. You tell him it's a bar of deodorant because it's a hot day and you wanted to smell good for your interview. He tells you to pull it out and show him. You move your hand to your pocket and immediately both weapons are trained between your eyes. You shoot your hands above your head and tell them you're unarmed.

Are they legally required to yell "stop resisting" before taking your worthless thug* ass out, or will that just be a formality?

*Because you know that's exactly how Fox is going to defend it, especially if you're black.

First off, everybody in the rich part of town never walks in the neighborhood.
Everybody knows this.
It doesn't matter what color you are, if anybody walks there, it is an automatic suspicion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, they do, but that is getting in trouble for using excessive force. you are 100% correct, the police are SUPPOSED to use only as much force as necessary to affect an arrest (but such force can include up to lethal force)

People need to learn their rights, Good faith arrests or searches are those made by the police in error, but not due to the police acting incorrectly.

If something gets screwed up in the paperwork and the police search the wrong house and you shoot them (providing they are identifying themselves as they make entrance) then YOU are on the hook, not the police. They acted in good faith.

Here's the case law and such

Police Searches and the Good Faith Exception | Nolo.com

Thanks for the link. I learned a couple of things...I did see this paragraph in there, though;


Some states, interpreting their own laws rather than the federal Constitution, choose not to apply the good faith exception. Some resort to it only under limited circumstances, while others flatly reject it. (The U.S. Constitution sets a minimum standard for protecting individual liberty—states are free to provide more protection pursuant to their own constitutions.)

I mean I only did this for 24 years. What do I know.

couldn't find honest work?

Dude, I was a military cop and served in THREE wars.

I mean I don't really mind that you disparage my service, but I have a lot of dead brothers and sisters who don't deserve that kind of insult just because you got your feelers hurt on the internet.

"dude"...I was making a joke about career cops...I can't know you were MP or how many wars you were in....stand down.

Well, go ******* walk a beat if career cop is such a fake job or whatever.

Or **** off, whichever.

I can tell you're a cop now....insecure, angry and aggressive...

That's Bucs90, you have the two mixed up. STTAB is standing right behind you; that's him breathing on your neck.

 

[MikeK]

If a cop enters the "wrong" house, that is an illegal entry...whatever the pretense/excuse/rationalization/intent.

In 1994, A Texas court acquitted eleven Branch Davidians who were charged with murdering four of the ATF agents who raided their communal residence at Waco, TX, in 1993. The court determined that the ATF raid on that residence was not lawful so the Davidians' actions in using lethal force to repel them was justified.

11 in Texas Sect Are Acquitted Of Key Charges

Unfortunately the Federal court ruled otherwise.

 

[Rotagilla]

They had to come up with SOMEthing to "justify" murdering all those people..I forget the numbers exactly but the number of children murdered there was almost as many as sandy hook...assuming you believe that was real...

 

[mamooth]

...and citizens are legally allowed to use lethal force on cops if they illegally enter your home.

As far as I know, Indiana is the only state with a law explicitly stating that.

NRA-Backed Law Spells Out When Indianans May Open Fire on Police

In any other state, a person will almost certainly be charge with murder or attempted murder if they shoot at a police officer who has mistakenly entered their home. They may get lucky with a sympathetic jury, but I wouldn't bet on it.

The Indiana law has never been tested. That is, over the 3 years the law has been there, nobody has shot at a cop who entered the wrong house. And the people-will-now-shoot-cops-at-a-whim bloodbath scenario predicted by the Indiana police has notably failed to materialize.

 

[Agit8r]

This is something I've been wondering for a while now too. Let's say you're returning from a job interview and choose to take the scenic route home through the rich side of town. You're wearing a white button down shirt, a tie, khakis, and dress shoes. An old woman happens to see you and calls the police. You have no idea until a police cruiser rolls up behind you. You turn around just in time to see the officer get out and ask you what you're doing. You tell him you just interviewed for a job and you're walking home. He asks you if you've been casing any houses. You ask what he means.

A second cruiser pulls up but this new cop is remaining inside. You can just barely see him on the radio. The first cop tells you that the area you're in has recently had a rash of break ins and you were reported as a suspicious individual. It turns out that the individual who reported you did so because she had never seen you before. You deny all charges just as the second cop gets out of the car. He walks towards you with his hand on the grip of his gun and demands to know what the bulge in your pocket is. You tell him it's a bar of deodorant because it's a hot day and you wanted to smell good for your interview. He tells you to pull it out and show him. You move your hand to your pocket and immediately both weapons are trained between your eyes. You shoot your hands above your head and tell them you're unarmed.

Are they legally required to yell "stop resisting" before taking your worthless thug* ass out, or will that just be a formality?

*Because you know that's exactly how Fox is going to defend it, especially if you're black.

No. But they do tend to call in the nearest obese cop to stand between you and an open view from the street. That is typically what is going on when you see two cop cars responding to the same incident.

 

[MikeK]

They had to come up with SOMEthing to "justify" murdering all those people..I forget the numbers exactly but the number of children murdered there was almost as many as sandy hook...assuming you believe that was real...

if you're talking about the Waco Massacre there were twenty-one children in the Davidian's communal residence when the feds either set fire to it or provoked a crazy man to do it. Some of those innocent kids were as young as two. Little tots.

But the authoritarian personalities who dominate America ignore that fact while blaming the conflagration solely on David Koresh. They ignore the fact that nothing can justify effecting or provoking the hideous deaths of those children. Nothing!

Those children were sacrificed to avenge the injured egos of those federal cops. And their action was approved by that degenerate freak, Janet Reno, Bill Clinton's Attorney General.

 

[Rotagilla]

..and then there's randy weaver.

 

[airplanemechanic]

If a cop enters the "wrong" house, that is an illegal entry...whatever the pretense/excuse/rationalization/intent.

Damn ******* straight. If I do 10 over the speed limit but didn't mean to because the speed limit sign was behind a clump of trees and its dark out, am I not still speeding?

Excuses are excuses. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. If you bust into the wrong house, NO MATTER WHY ITS THE WRONG HOUSE, you have committed the crime of illegal entry and may be shot dead. I don't give a damn WHO you are. No cop is going to purposely invade the wrong house. All of these invasions are done accidentally. That doesn't change the fact that the entry was illegal. Best to double check the paperwork, right?

If I accidentally run over someone with my car, is that not manslaughter? Why yes, it is!

Hang on Rotagilla, the guy doesn't understand what he's reading. Read this:

FindLaw's Writ - Colb: How Far Does Police "Good Faith" Go? The Supreme Court Creates Another Exception to The Exclusionary Rule

The good faith clause has nothing to do with them invading your house illegally. It has to do with whether they can use evidence seized in an improper search in a court case against you.

One exception to the exclusionary rule first emerged in United States v. Leon. The Supreme Court there held that if a police officer relied in objective "good faith" on a warrant that turned out to be invalid, then the evidence obtained would be admissible at a subsequent criminal trial – despite the presumed invalidity of the warrant.

It speaks of EVIDENCE, not of whether the entire thing was legal or not.

So no, you were not wrong. The other guy was.