Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« CORE amicus brief | Main | Briefs in Peruta v. San Diego »

Local SWAT raid

Posted by David Hardy · 29 May 2011 12:01 PM

Good article here. Official version is that the man they killed (who'd served two tours in Iraq and had a clean record threw down on them with a rifle and said something to the effect that he had something for them. Now it develops the rifle was on "safe," hardly the mark of a suspect ready to go down shooting. And I suspect the statement he supposedly made is going to be either (1) not something he said, my main bet, or (2) he was under the impression that the people who'd smashed down his door and stormed in were robbers.

9 Comments | Leave a comment

Anonymous | May 29, 2011 4:07 PM | Reply

You have no right to resist a entry even if the entry is unlawful...Indiana Supreme Court May, 2011.

"People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a decision that overturns centuries of common law."

"The court issued its 3-2 ruling on Thursday, contending that allowing residents to resist officers who enter their homes without any right would increase the risk of violent confrontation. If police enter a home illegally, the courts are the proper place to protest it, Justice Steven David said."

It's the end of the world as we know it!

Just Sayin!

damdoc | May 29, 2011 5:09 PM | Reply

some times you are going to take a stand, legal or not. it is the principle of the thing. period.

Dave R | May 30, 2011 11:35 AM | Reply

There's a kind of "heads we win/tails you lose" dynamic in play here. If the guy had fired, even only after the police opened fire, then the public story would have been of a justified shooting. But as long as prosecutors and juries continue to give SWAT teams a pass on murder and manslaughter, doing the right thing and holding fire just lets SWAT teams continue on with a deeply flawed and immoral doctrine.

I've had the thought that the only way to end routine no-knock, militarized searches is for law-abiding gun owners to start treating all home invasions as criminals unless absolutely certain otherwise. But that's a hard thing to ask when your family's in the house also. And less important morally but still critical, I'm not actually sure of how that would play in the media and the broader public.

Anon | May 30, 2011 6:40 PM | Reply

Comment (paraphrased) seen on Reason.com's blog:


Political rhetoric does not kill people; Sheriff Dupnik's department kills people.


Kristopher | May 31, 2011 1:30 PM | Reply

This crap won't end until some commissioners get fired. Look up the Gypsy Joker's raid in Portland in the '70s.

Until there is some real retribution, the police state crap will continue.

475okh | May 31, 2011 6:13 PM | Reply

This poor fellow could have been selling crack to 1st graders but he did not deserve this treatment.

Peter | June 1, 2011 9:13 AM | Reply

The justification for these no knock raids is that the suspect will flush the drugs down the toilet.
Am I supposed to believe that dealer can flush pounds of pot down a US Congress approved, low flow toilet?
If the amount involved is small enough to be flushed down the toilet, do we really need to involve the SWAT team?

Jeff | June 1, 2011 3:47 PM | Reply

Combine this with the increasing number of home invaders who are impersonating police and you have a no-win scenario. The best one-size-fits-all solution (which is what your reaction will default to under stress) is to fight and retreat, buying time until you can figure out what is going on and who the bad guys are. Sadly, I think the only thing that will alter SWAT doctrine is the death of SWAT cops, not the firing of some upper-level bureaucrats.

AvgJoe | June 4, 2011 9:16 AM | Reply

There is talk that the AR-15 that was next to his body was a throw down. Information on this murder is very slow in coming. Do not lose sight that there was no search warrant for this man or anyone in his family or his address. What we have here is nothing short of state murder.

Leave a comment