I have mixed feelings on this....

[Maverick44]

Over on arfcom there are plenty of cops saying it’s a good shoot.

From what I've seen of arfcom over the years, it's kind of a cesspool, so that doesn't surprise me.

 

[Sasquatch]

Rights are Rights and are not contigent on responsibility, and are even there to protect the complete fucking retards. This guy had a right to be a compete fucking regard within his residence, that right was taken away be an officer ending his life

LEOs have an impossibly difficult job at times with their personal safety vs civilian safety in interactions like this, but a man's Rights within his home were violated, no matter the context, and I can't give this officer a pass. It sucks because myself in that officer's situation probably would have reacted similarly, but no right should ever be trampled.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

And the officer maintains an inherant right to self defense, and must make snap judgements to preserve his own safety and that of any innocent bystanders. In cases like this - the individual citizens rights come into contact and conflict with that of the government agents. Police are not trained to wait until they're shot at or stabbed to take action, and there have now been numerous court cases setting precedent that they do not have to wait to be attacked to use deadly force. This does lead to encounters like this unfortunate one.

When one is dealing with an agent of the state - be it police, DMV lady, mailman, county clerk, librarian or toll booth Willy - you are balancing your God given rights with theirs, and with governmental authority which can wind up causing you harm anywhere from a minor fee, to death depending on the situation.

Government employees, save for members of the military, don't give up *their* rights when they put on a uniform or punch a time clock. The police are the only government employees specifically called in to be the first-responders to violence, potential violence, and criminality. They wind up in the precarious position of balancing the rights of others, including the right to life, with the welbeing of the public at large, their own personal safety, and enforcement of the standing laws of the land. As such they've been given much more leeway in how they accomplish certain tasks than other civilians would be given - such as the use of deadly force or the threat of deadly force to gain compliance or to stop certain crimes or fleeing felons.

No one has said that this airman forfeited his RIGHT to be armed in his home, but rights DO come with responsiblities, like it or not, and if you ignore the responsibility part, you could find yourself right, but dead as this unfortunate airman did. You can argue the airman has a right to be a retard, but having rights don't mean you are free of consequences of your own actions, especially when your actions cross into causing harm to others or making others have a reasonable belief that you're about to harm or kill them.

Police are not pyschic and thus this deputy didn't know that this airman was not, in fact, the perpetrator of domestic violence and that he probably was not going to shoot the deputy - however his reaction is not something most "reasonable persons" (one of the most common used legal perspectives) would say was normal or reasonable - when someone is banging on your door and identifies themselves as law enforcement, most "reasonable" people are NOT going to open the door with their gun in hand at their side. They would simply either not open the door, or not be holding the gun when opening the door. A holstered gun is a whole world different than a gun in the hand in this scenario.

It can be argued that with the seemingly more and more prevalent cases of police impersonation home invasions that someone can't simply take "SHERIFFS OFFICE" or "POLICE" as gospel when accompanied by banging on one's door, but those cases are still statistic outliers as opposed to the norm. Most home invasions still are targetted, and often the "victims" are competitor-criminals to the perpetrators. If one believes themselves to be the target of home invaders, and NOT actual law enforcement - answering the door at all is an incredibly stupid move, armed or not. A reasonable person would likely take up a defensive position, probably call 9-1-1, and wait for whoever was outside to make their move.

Instead of this deputy being the target of all the hate and ire - the focus should probably be shifted to the person who made the claims that this individual was engaging in domestic violence. Was this a case of swatting, was it a gross over-reaction or misinterpretation of a sitution? Malice or ignorance seems to be the only two paths there. If the investigation reveals that the original reporting party lied or embellished their story to ensure a police response, maybe they should be held responsible for the death - at least civilly if not criminally. If their report was made in good faith but it is revealed that the noises were coming from a television, video game, or from another source altogether then sadly we are stuck with a tragic death but the only person to ultimately blame is the person who answered the door with a gun in hand when it was the police - something they should've at least had an expectation to end poorly (especially given the typical media portrayal of police.)

Now if the investigation comes to the conclusion that this deputy did in fact act outside of agency policy, training, and the law then he should be likewise tried, convicted, and held accountable and whatever personal assets he had should be forfeit in order to pay the survivors. I don't believe that is the likely course this investigation is going to take though.

 

[V-Tach]

Still say, let a jury decide............

 

[A.Texas.Yankee]

And the officer maintains an inherant right to self defense, and must make snap judgements to preserve his own safety and that of any innocent bystanders. In cases like this - the individual citizens rights come into contact and conflict with that of the government agents. Police are not trained to wait until they're shot at or stabbed to take action, and there have now been numerous court cases setting precedent that they do not have to wait to be attacked to use deadly force. This does lead to encounters like this unfortunate one.

When one is dealing with an agent of the state - be it police, DMV lady, mailman, county clerk, librarian or toll booth Willy - you are balancing your God given rights with theirs, and with governmental authority which can wind up causing you harm anywhere from a minor fee, to death depending on the situation.

Government employees, save for members of the military, don't give up *their* rights when they put on a uniform or punch a time clock. The police are the only government employees specifically called in to be the first-responders to violence, potential violence, and criminality. They wind up in the precarious position of balancing the rights of others, including the right to life, with the welbeing of the public at large, their own personal safety, and enforcement of the standing laws of the land. As such they've been given much more leeway in how they accomplish certain tasks than other civilians would be given - such as the use of deadly force or the threat of deadly force to gain compliance or to stop certain crimes or fleeing felons.

No one has said that this airman forfeited his RIGHT to be armed in his home, but rights DO come with responsiblities, like it or not, and if you ignore the responsibility part, you could find yourself right, but dead as this unfortunate airman did. You can argue the airman has a right to be a retard, but having rights don't mean you are free of consequences of your own actions, especially when your actions cross into causing harm to others or making others have a reasonable belief that you're about to harm or kill them.

Police are not pyschic and thus this deputy didn't know that this airman was not, in fact, the perpetrator of domestic violence and that he probably was not going to shoot the deputy - however his reaction is not something most "reasonable persons" (one of the most common used legal perspectives) would say was normal or reasonable - when someone is banging on your door and identifies themselves as law enforcement, most "reasonable" people are NOT going to open the door with their gun in hand at their side. They would simply either not open the door, or not be holding the gun when opening the door. A holstered gun is a whole world different than a gun in the hand in this scenario.

It can be argued that with the seemingly more and more prevalent cases of police impersonation home invasions that someone can't simply take "SHERIFFS OFFICE" or "POLICE" as gospel when accompanied by banging on one's door, but those cases are still statistic outliers as opposed to the norm. Most home invasions still are targetted, and often the "victims" are competitor-criminals to the perpetrators. If one believes themselves to be the target of home invaders, and NOT actual law enforcement - answering the door at all is an incredibly stupid move, armed or not. A reasonable person would likely take up a defensive position, probably call 9-1-1, and wait for whoever was outside to make their move.

Instead of this deputy being the target of all the hate and ire - the focus should probably be shifted to the person who made the claims that this individual was engaging in domestic violence. Was this a case of swatting, was it a gross over-reaction or misinterpretation of a sitution? Malice or ignorance seems to be the only two paths there. If the investigation reveals that the original reporting party lied or embellished their story to ensure a police response, maybe they should be held responsible for the death - at least civilly if not criminally. If their report was made in good faith but it is revealed that the noises were coming from a television, video game, or from another source altogether then sadly we are stuck with a tragic death but the only person to ultimately blame is the person who answered the door with a gun in hand when it was the police - something they should've at least had an expectation to end poorly (especially given the typical media portrayal of police.)

Now if the investigation comes to the conclusion that this deputy did in fact act outside of agency policy, training, and the law then he should be likewise tried, convicted, and held accountable and whatever personal assets he had should be forfeit in order to pay the survivors. I don't believe that is the likely course this investigation is going to take though.

You can't claim to defend the officer stating resident was irresponsible while not, inkind, saying officer was also irresponsible. Context is key, but it's NOT self-defense for the officer. It might be self-preservation (a slight but not insignificant difference), but he was the aggressor and was infringing in resident's rights within his home. The resident did not infringe on the officer's rights (more later). Your own stupidity getting you killed vs getting you killed while your rights are infrigned upon are two very different things. Another way to say it is that's like me breaking into someone's house, homeowner pulling a gun on me, and then I shoot them and claim self-defense... doesn't work for me and shouldn't work for an officer. The bill of rights is to protect the citizens from the government, the officer IS the government.

Are you saying military give up their rights but LEOs don't? What's the difference?

Rights don't come with any stipulations, including responsibility. You could be the dumbest most irresponsible person in the county... your rights still apply. If it's a god-given right, it cannot be taken away. Suggesting it requires responsibility implies it can be taken away for irresponsibility, stupidity, etc. That's not how rights work. True, you might end up dead, but UNRIGHTFUULY so. Being responsible is not a pre-requisite for your rights. Being irresponsible does not give someone else the authority to take your rights away (unless your irresponsibility infringes upon another citizen's right, and I reference my example above and also again for this where officer is the government).

First responders have an absolute nightmare of a job, and too much pressure (and faith) is put onto LEOs. But that shouldn't give them absolute immunity. Taking the "officer is the government" out of perspective, who's rights were violated? I state another example for thought. I as a citizen hear my husband and wife neighbors arguing aggressively and loudly, I knock on the door to see if everything is OK, owner answers door with gun and I was already drawn (expecting a threat) ready to shoot,and I kill husband, is that "self-defense" for me?

Most reasonable people would not disregard an officer's demands. Most people are going to open the door. I'll agree that "swatting" instigator should be criminally charged. Agency policy and trading don't always follow constitution.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[mongoose]

And the officer maintains an inherant right to self defense, and must make snap judgements to preserve his own safety and that of any innocent bystanders. In cases like this - the individual citizens rights come into contact and conflict with that of the government agents. Police are not trained to wait until they're shot at or stabbed to take action, and there have now been numerous court cases setting precedent that they do not have to wait to be attacked to use deadly force. This does lead to encounters like this unfortunate one.

When one is dealing with an agent of the state - be it police, DMV lady, mailman, county clerk, librarian or toll booth Willy - you are balancing your God given rights with theirs, and with governmental authority which can wind up causing you harm anywhere from a minor fee, to death depending on the situation.

Government employees, save for members of the military, don't give up *their* rights when they put on a uniform or punch a time clock. The police are the only government employees specifically called in to be the first-responders to violence, potential violence, and criminality. They wind up in the precarious position of balancing the rights of others, including the right to life, with the welbeing of the public at large, their own personal safety, and enforcement of the standing laws of the land. As such they've been given much more leeway in how they accomplish certain tasks than other civilians would be given - such as the use of deadly force or the threat of deadly force to gain compliance or to stop certain crimes or fleeing felons.

No one has said that this airman forfeited his RIGHT to be armed in his home, but rights DO come with responsiblities, like it or not, and if you ignore the responsibility part, you could find yourself right, but dead as this unfortunate airman did. You can argue the airman has a right to be a retard, but having rights don't mean you are free of consequences of your own actions, especially when your actions cross into causing harm to others or making others have a reasonable belief that you're about to harm or kill them.

Police are not pyschic and thus this deputy didn't know that this airman was not, in fact, the perpetrator of domestic violence and that he probably was not going to shoot the deputy - however his reaction is not something most "reasonable persons" (one of the most common used legal perspectives) would say was normal or reasonable - when someone is banging on your door and identifies themselves as law enforcement, most "reasonable" people are NOT going to open the door with their gun in hand at their side. They would simply either not open the door, or not be holding the gun when opening the door. A holstered gun is a whole world different than a gun in the hand in this scenario.

It can be argued that with the seemingly more and more prevalent cases of police impersonation home invasions that someone can't simply take "SHERIFFS OFFICE" or "POLICE" as gospel when accompanied by banging on one's door, but those cases are still statistic outliers as opposed to the norm. Most home invasions still are targetted, and often the "victims" are competitor-criminals to the perpetrators. If one believes themselves to be the target of home invaders, and NOT actual law enforcement - answering the door at all is an incredibly stupid move, armed or not. A reasonable person would likely take up a defensive position, probably call 9-1-1, and wait for whoever was outside to make their move.

Instead of this deputy being the target of all the hate and ire - the focus should probably be shifted to the person who made the claims that this individual was engaging in domestic violence. Was this a case of swatting, was it a gross over-reaction or misinterpretation of a sitution? Malice or ignorance seems to be the only two paths there. If the investigation reveals that the original reporting party lied or embellished their story to ensure a police response, maybe they should be held responsible for the death - at least civilly if not criminally. If their report was made in good faith but it is revealed that the noises were coming from a television, video game, or from another source altogether then sadly we are stuck with a tragic death but the only person to ultimately blame is the person who answered the door with a gun in hand when it was the police - something they should've at least had an expectation to end poorly (especially given the typical media portrayal of police.)

Now if the investigation comes to the conclusion that this deputy did in fact act outside of agency policy, training, and the law then he should be likewise tried, convicted, and held accountable and whatever personal assets he had should be forfeit in order to pay the survivors. I don't believe that is the likely course this investigation is going to take though.

Do you have to be psychic to go to the correct address?

 

[popsgarland]

By looking at the video, the man inside the noisy apartment, most likely could not hear the officer identify himself and the air force guy did not know for sure who was pounding on his door. He also had his gun pointed down and not in the shooting position. I thing it was a bad move on the for the cop to start shooting (almost) as the door was opened.

 

[Ausländer]

And the officer maintains an inherant right to self defense, and must make snap judgements to preserve his own safety and that of any innocent bystanders.

By this reasoning, the acorn cop was completely justified in emptying his mag(s).

In this particular situation, the officer panicked and is therefore responsible for his actions. There should not be one set of rules for the gov and another for civilians.

 

[SGT Dave]

By this reasoning, the acorn cop was completely justified in emptying his mag(s).

In this particular situation, the officer panicked and is therefore responsible for his actions. There should not be one set of rules for the gov and another for civilians.

Agreed. And considering this is the same county where the cops shot up their car because of an acorn, I'm not giving them the benefit the doubt. That whole sheriff's office needs cleaned up and retrained. Test them all for steroids and speed, perform periodic evals to test their temperament, and maybe start limiting their caffeine.

 

[Havok1]

Still say, let a jury decide............

This may very well happen, but not sure that the jury’s verdict means much to anything more than the defendants fate. Listen to the interviews of the jurors for Derek Chauvin and ask yourself if you’d want them deciding your fate. I know I wouldn’t. I personally believe the officer was in the wrong, but regardless of that, the more traction this gains, the less likely it is that a jury won’t be be biased one way other the other in my opinion.

 

[Gordo]

Over on arfcom there are plenty of cops saying it’s a good shoot.

Well, it isn't called AR15.commie for nothing.

 

[Texan79423]

Question for Airman. Why do you answer the door with a gun in hand but not in a defensive stance?
Question for Cop. Judged by 12 months later or carried by 6 days later?

 

[Havok1]

Question for Airman. Why do you answer the door with a gun in hand but not in a defensive stance?
Question for Cop. Judged by 12 months later or carried by 6 days later?

People like the Airman answer their door armed and somehow it’s only police who draw their gun and shoot them. I wouldn’t have answered the door the way he did, but it also shouldn’t have been a death sentence just because some cop with obviously sketchy information happened to be at the door.

 

[Sasquatch]

Do you have to be psychic to go to the correct address?

That narrative is a lie. They went to the correct address, stop believing misinformation spread by Ben Crump.

 

[leVieux]

Yeah F them !

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

<>

If they consider this ‘’justified’’, they shouldn’t be LEO’s.

Noncriminal citizen in his own home, with gun. No disturbance, no threat, WITNESS on the phone.

Shoot the guy ?

NUTS !

<>

 

[leVieux]

That narrative is a lie. They went to the correct address, stop believing misinformation spread by Ben Crump.

<>

Err, there was a WITNESS.

And, your prior post misstates Florida Law.

<>

 

[Mike_from_Texas]

Another American citizen murdered in their own home by law enforcement.


This is not headed in a good direction. People are going to start shooting first…….


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Sasquatch]

You can't claim to defend the officer stating resident was irresponsible while not, inkind, saying officer was also irresponsible. Context is key, but it's NOT self-defense for the officer. It might be self-preservation (a slight but not insignificant difference), but he was the aggressor and was infringing in resident's rights within his home. The resident did not infringe on the officer's rights (more later). Your own stupidity getting you killed vs getting you killed while your rights are infrigned upon are two very different things. Another way to say it is that's like me breaking into someone's house, homeowner pulling a gun on me, and then I shoot them and claim self-defense... doesn't work for me and shouldn't work for an officer. The bill of rights is to protect the citizens from the government, the officer IS the government.

Are you saying military give up their rights but LEOs don't? What's the difference?

Rights don't come with any stipulations, including responsibility. You could be the dumbest most irresponsible person in the county... your rights still apply. If it's a god-given right, it cannot be taken away. Suggesting it requires responsibility implies it can be taken away for irresponsibility, stupidity, etc. That's not how rights work. True, you might end up dead, but UNRIGHTFUULY so. Being responsible is not a pre-requisite for your rights. Being irresponsible does not give someone else the authority to take your rights away (unless your irresponsibility infringes upon another citizen's right, and I reference my example above and also again for this where officer is the government).

First responders have an absolute nightmare of a job, and too much pressure (and faith) is put onto LEOs. But that shouldn't give them absolute immunity. Taking the "officer is the government" out of perspective, who's rights were violated? I state another example for thought. I as a citizen hear my husband and wife neighbors arguing aggressively and loudly, I knock on the door to see if everything is OK, owner answers door with gun and I was already drawn (expecting a threat) ready to shoot,and I kill husband, is that "self-defense" for me?

Most reasonable people would not disregard an officer's demands. Most people are going to open the door. I'll agree that "swatting" instigator should be criminally charged. Agency policy and trading don't always follow constitution.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

Ah buts DO come with responsibility, like it or not. Your rights are contingent on not unduely infringing upon the rights of another - note I said unduely. If you act in an unreasonable, irresponsible manner then others may take actions against you - this could be some other random person you encounter exercising their own right to self defense. It could be someone calling the police who then come and engage you, which again could ultimately wind up with you losing your life. Its a complete fallacy to say that rights are severed from responsibility - perhaps in an idealistic world not based in reality, but reality is that the society we live and participate in *does* include responsibilities, and unfortunately what could be common sense, or should be learned information from one's parents and peers, isn't always learned or retained and the outcomes are sometimes tragic but completely avoidable.

Our own Constitution lays out that one *can* be deprived of their rights through due process, which is how we currently exclude convicted felons, and those convicted of certain misdemeanor crimes (especially like domestic violence) of exercising their 2A rights (which I personally find abhorrent - if you're too dangerous to be trusted with a gun, you're too dangerous to be walking among the public and should be in prison.) Your God given rights still exist, but are curtailed in practice because again - we could not have a functional society without the ability to restrict one's rights. If we didn't - then criminals in jail or prison would still be due their 2A rights and you cannot have prisoners with weapons.

As for members of the military giving up their rights, while civilian LE do not - that's exactly the scenario. When you enlist in the military you've entered a contract with the federal government which includes the curtailing of exercising certain rights, and you are treated more as property of the government for the duration of your service, than as a regular citizen. Civilian law enforcement officers do not enter into such contracts nor have such constraints placed upon them - the closest that we come to that is that established case law in some jurisdictions, in some circumstances, prevents police officers from being the "victim" of certain crimes (typically nuisance offenses and not physical crimes.) As far as the use of physical force goes - the courts, including the Supreme Court - have established precedent that gives law enforcement more broad authority to use force, including deadly force in the exercise of their duties.

In the example you give - going to check on your neighbors who are arguing - you are not a law enforcement officer with a duty (legal, or by policy) to investigate or intervene. You're simply a concerned citizen. You going over with a gun in your hand would be seen as aggressive and instigating. Your not knocking and annoucing to your neighbor that you are a law enforcement officer (that'd be impersonation if you did and you're not a cop, thus you'd be committing a crime right off the bat) - you're just a concerned neighbor. Your neighbor exercising his own 2A rights comes to the door - you blast him because action beats reaction. His action of course can be perceived as threatening, but your initial action is also threatening. You - having no legal duty to be there and not being called to the scene to help - have set yourself up for a murder trial (or manslaughter at least).

A police officer responding to a 9-1-1 call on the other hand has a legal duty and right to be there. When he has annoucing himself as a police officer while knocking, its reasonable to expect that the person on the other side of that door *knows* that he's a police officer. A person coming to answer the door for a random stranger, versus a person coming to answer the door when its reasonable expected that they know its a police officer is a different set of circumstances - and a necessary difference for society to function and for police to be able to do their job.

You are correct that sometimes agencies policies and training don't follow the Constitution - and that needs to be rectified. On that same line - civics classes need to be a part of every public school curriculum so that our children learn what their rights actually are, and how the government is supposed to function, so that they understand the roles of both the citizenry and the government in our society. May wind up for the better for everyone with more educated law enforcement officers, and a general population that is better equipped to protect themselves and their rights, including the right NOT to open a door for someone from the government who doesn't have a warrant. Let them kick the door if they have the right to enter.

 

[V-Tach]

This may very well happen, but not sure that the jury’s verdict means much to anything more than the defendants fate. Listen to the interviews of the jurors for Derek Chauvin and ask yourself if you’d want them deciding your fate. I know I wouldn’t. I personally believe the officer was in the wrong, but regardless of that, the more traction this gains, the less likely it is that a jury won’t be be biased one way other the other in my opinion.

That jury were cowards...........and pathetic.............

 

[Havok1]

That narrative is a lie. They went to the correct address, stop believing misinformation spread by Ben Crump.

The lady telling the officer about an incident that she didn’t even witness said she wasn’t sure what apartment it was. Then the officer killed the guy who turned out to be home alone, so how sure are you that this was actually the apartment the guy was supposed to be at?

 

[leVieux]

Ah buts DO come with responsibility, like it or not. Your rights are contingent on not unduely infringing upon the rights of another - note I said unduely. If you act in an unreasonable, irresponsible manner then others may take actions against you - this could be some other random person you encounter exercising their own right to self defense. It could be someone calling the police who then come and engage you, which again could ultimately wind up with you losing your life. Its a complete fallacy to say that rights are severed from responsibility - perhaps in an idealistic world not based in reality, but reality is that the society we live and participate in *does* include responsibilities, and unfortunately what could be common sense, or should be learned information from one's parents and peers, isn't always learned or retained and the outcomes are sometimes tragic but completely avoidable.

Our own Constitution lays out that one *can* be deprived of their rights through due process, which is how we currently exclude convicted felons, and those convicted of certain misdemeanor crimes (especially like domestic violence) of exercising their 2A rights (which I personally find abhorrent - if you're too dangerous to be trusted with a gun, you're too dangerous to be walking among the public and should be in prison.) Your God given rights still exist, but are curtailed in practice because again - we could not have a functional society without the ability to restrict one's rights. If we didn't - then criminals in jail or prison would still be due their 2A rights and you cannot have prisoners with weapons.

As for members of the military giving up their rights, while civilian LE do not - that's exactly the scenario. When you enlist in the military you've entered a contract with the federal government which includes the curtailing of exercising certain rights, and you are treated more as property of the government for the duration of your service, than as a regular citizen. Civilian law enforcement officers do not enter into such contracts nor have such constraints placed upon them - the closest that we come to that is that established case law in some jurisdictions, in some circumstances, prevents police officers from being the "victim" of certain crimes (typically nuisance offenses and not physical crimes.) As far as the use of physical force goes - the courts, including the Supreme Court - have established precedent that gives law enforcement more broad authority to use force, including deadly force in the exercise of their duties.

In the example you give - going to check on your neighbors who are arguing - you are not a law enforcement officer with a duty (legal, or by policy) to investigate or intervene. You're simply a concerned citizen. You going over with a gun in your hand would be seen as aggressive and instigating. Your not knocking and annoucing to your neighbor that you are a law enforcement officer (that'd be impersonation if you did and you're not a cop, thus you'd be committing a crime right off the bat) - you're just a concerned neighbor. Your neighbor exercising his own 2A rights comes to the door - you blast him because action beats reaction. His action of course can be perceived as threatening, but your initial action is also threatening. You - having no legal duty to be there and not being called to the scene to help - have set yourself up for a murder trial (or manslaughter at least).

A police officer responding to a 9-1-1 call on the other hand has a legal duty and right to be there. When he has annoucing himself as a police officer while knocking, its reasonable to expect that the person on the other side of that door *knows* that he's a police officer. A person coming to answer the door for a random stranger, versus a person coming to answer the door when its reasonable expected that they know its a police officer is a different set of circumstances - and a necessary difference for society to function and for police to be able to do their job.

You are correct that sometimes agencies policies and training don't follow the Constitution - and that needs to be rectified. On that same line - civics classes need to be a part of every public school curriculum so that our children learn what their rights actually are, and how the government is supposed to function, so that they understand the roles of both the citizenry and the government in our society. May wind up for the better for everyone with more educated law enforcement officers, and a general population that is better equipped to protect themselves and their rights, including the right NOT to open a door for someone from the government who doesn't have a warrant. Let them kick the door if they have the right to enter.

<>

”When he has annoucing himself as a police officer while knocking, its reasonable to expect that the person on the other side of that door *knows* that he's a police officer’’

You are NUTS !

Area LEO’s tell that virtually every criminal home invasion begins with a loud knock and “Open-up, Police!”

leVieux

,.