Homeowner had 'a right to resist'

[shanek]

We need more judges like this:

John Coffin won't spend any more time in jail for beating up two sheriff's deputies inside his house, striking one in the head with a Taser gun he took from the other.

Circuit Judge Rick De Furia said at Coffin's trial Tuesday that he doesn't condone the violence against the deputies.

But Coffin, 56, had a right to defend his family and property because the deputies had no right to be in Coffin's house in the first place, De Furia said.

"Law enforcement was responsible for the chain of events here," De Furia said. "I think in situations like this, officers become so frustrated they go beyond what the law allows them to do."And that's the point: when officers go outside the bounds of the law, they become criminals just like everyone else. At that point, they had become armed thugs.

And they arrested Coffin's wife, Cynthia, 50, on obstruction charges even though she had no obligation to follow their orders to bring her husband outside.

"The most critical is the fact the officers broke the law by stopping the garage door from going down," and then entering the garage, De Furia said.De Furia said that while he believed the deputies' mistakes were not intentional, the Coffins had every right to lock doors, try to close their garage door and not cooperate.

"What took place in the house was unfortunate," De Furia said, "but Mr. Coffin ... had a right to resist."Too often, the cops just get away with a lot worse than this. Not this time. Nice work, De Furia!

Full article: http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070314/NEWS/703140547

[Miss Anthrope]

Do you have a link to a full article?

[shanek]

Dangit! It's there now. Thanks, Miss A.

[Miss Anthrope]

Wow, the amount of resistance was questionable, but they had no warrant.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Yep. Peace officers are not above the law. Fortunately most of them are pretty decent folks.

[WildCat]

Yep. Peace officers are not above the law. Fortunately most of them are pretty decent folks.
And some are violent drunks (http://www.myfoxchicago.com/myfox/MyFox/pages/sidebar_video.jsp?contentId=2725598&version=1&locale=EN-US).

Yes, the guy beating up the female bartender is a cop (http://www.myfoxchicago.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=2725581&version=3&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1)... too bad no one had the guts to knock him unconscious. :mad: Some need reminding they're not above the law.

[username]

I am always happy to see people get off on charges when it is clear they were resisting officers who were breaking the law.

What bothers me is that it requires the officers to be breaking the law, not simply being asshats as some laws require them to be.

As an example, a judge issues a warrant in a drug case. The cops have misidentified the guilty party, but the legal process is followed and a warrant is issued for officers to search YOUR property. Because it is a drug case the officers are not required to knock and wait for you to answer. Instead they bash in the door to your home in the middle of the night and never announce themselves as police.

You are awoken from your sleep to the sound of a break in. You grab the firearm in your bedroom and take aim at your bedroom door hoping it doesn't open, but it does. It is kicked down. Fearing for your safety or that of your family you fire the weapon.

You are charged and convicted of killing a police officer.

Had the police officer not been acting officially you would have not faced any punishment.

This scenario sucks because there was no way for you to know it was a police officer.

[aerosolben]

You are charged and convicted of killing a police officer.

This scenario sucks because there was no way for you to know it was a police officer.
I'm not convinced this conviction would actually hold up in a real court of law. Do you have any examples that have not been repudiated?

[shecky]

I'm not convinced this conviction would actually hold up in a real court of law. Do you have any examples that have not been repudiated?

Cory Maye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye) seems to have come pretty close. Then there are those (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston) who don't survive the confrontation.

[casebro]

You might also try looking up "Sagon Penn". And yes, first you have to survive the encounter.

[CFLarsen]

And that's the point: when officers go outside the bounds of the law, they become criminals just like everyone else. At that point, they had become armed thugs.

Even if they believe the law that is being broken is unconstitutional?

[Miss Anthrope]

Even if they believe the law that is being broken is unconstitutional?

WHAT?

[Charlie Monoxide]

You gotta love Florida ....

Charlie (back to Nevada in May, woo-hoo) Monoxide

[Solus]

I can't imagine attacking a uniformed officer. They would have be beating my mother or something for me to go such lengths.

[HarryKeogh]

I can't imagine attacking a uniformed officer. They would have be beating my mother or something for me to go such lengths.

How about if you heard your wife screaming in pain, went into the garage and saw two deputies arresting her on the floor after they entered your house illegally?

Well, that's what happened according to the story.

OK, granted, it's not "beating" but maybe hearing your spouse screaming in pain while on the floor would trigger an action you may not normally consider.

[Beerina]

I am always happy to see people get off on charges when it is clear they were resisting officers who were breaking the law.

What bothers me is that it requires the officers to be breaking the law, not simply being asshats as some laws require them to be.

As an example, a judge issues a warrant in a drug case. The cops have misidentified the guilty party, but the legal process is followed and a warrant is issued for officers to search YOUR property. Because it is a drug case the officers are not required to knock and wait for you to answer. Instead they bash in the door to your home in the middle of the night and never announce themselves as police.

You are awoken from your sleep to the sound of a break in. You grab the firearm in your bedroom and take aim at your bedroom door hoping it doesn't open, but it does. It is kicked down. Fearing for your safety or that of your family you fire the weapon.

You are charged and convicted of killing a police officer.

Had the police officer not been acting officially you would have not faced any punishment.

This scenario sucks because there was no way for you to know it was a police officer.

Are you sure that's legally the case? While I'm hesitant to quote TV, LA Law (or whatever the one with Lara Flynn Boyle was) had a case (indeed, it may have started the show off) where cops burst in properly and the guy returns fire, killing one or both, I forget. Anyway, his defense was that the police didn't identify themselves, and clearly were armed -- he was just defending himself. He got off.

So if that's correct, police invading improperly would carry even less weight.

[Beerina]

You gotta love Florida ....

Did they do something wrong? :)

Charlie (back to Nevada in May, woo-hoo) Monoxide

You're supposed to move away from the hot states during summer, not go back there!

[Solus]

How about if you heard your wife screaming in pain, went into the garage and saw two deputies arresting her on the floor after they entered your house illegally?

Well, that's what happened according to the story.

OK, granted, it's not "beating" but maybe hearing your spouse screaming in pain while on the floor would trigger an action you may not normally consider.

True, depends on the context. In those kind of situations, anyone who says they can stay rational is probably lying.

[aerosolben]

Cory Maye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye) seems to have come pretty close.
Mr. Maye's conviction has apparently been overturned. Strike me as more of a conviction due to a bad trial rather than an endorsement of the scenario in question.

Also, the police claim to have identified themselves prior to entry, which makes the question under debate one of fact rather than law (if I'm using the term correctly).

Then there are those (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston) who don't survive the confrontation.
The article says "Georgia's district attorney will seek felony murder and burglary indictments against the three agents involved."

You might also try looking up "Sagon Penn". And yes, first you have to survive the encounter.
Acquitted.

I stand by my orginial point - in fact, I think all of these examples back it up.

[brodski]

WHAT?

In the past Shanek has taken the position that is the duty of every police officer to uphold the US constitution as they understand it, including refusing to enforce laws which they deem to be unconstitutional. Claus disagrees- strongly- and is trolling for a fight, despite the fact he knows that Shanek has him on ignore

[CFLarsen]

WHAT?


If a cop decides that a law violates the Constitution, he just doesn't arrest the person and that's the end of it.
Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=944697#post944697)

Yup, those were the words.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Even if they believe the law that is being broken is unconstitutional?

Good point.

[CFLarsen]

In the past Shanek has taken the position that is the duty of every police officer to uphold the US constitution as they understand it, including refusing to enforce laws which they deem to be unconstitutional.

Not just that. Shanek argues that the cop can't be punished for doing it.

That's why his OP is so puzzling.

Claus disagrees- strongly- and is trolling for a fight, despite the fact he knows that Shanek has him on ignore

No, he doesn't.

[Tony]

I'd like to see more decisions like this. The police have too much power in this country. Citizens need to have the power to defend themselves and their families against over-zealous and criminal cops.

[Tony]

I can't imagine attacking a uniformed officer.

I can. Did you see this thread from a few months ago?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=68867

[HarryKeogh]

Not just that. Shanek argues that the cop can't be punished for doing it.

Did these two police officers maintain that not being allowed to enter one's house without a warrant is unconstitutional?

If not, stop trolling for a fight.

[BPSCG]

Charlie (back to Nevada in May, woo-hoo) MonoxideGoing back to Tahoe?

[shanek]

In the past Shanek has taken the position that is the duty of every police officer to uphold the US constitution as they understand it, including refusing to enforce laws which they deem to be unconstitutional.

And this is based on the FACT (which Claus and others have laughably tried to deny) that police officers swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. If they don't have any power to refuse to follow unconstitutional orders, then what's the point of this oath?

[CFLarsen]

And this is based on the FACT (which Claus and others have laughably tried to deny) that police officers swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. If they don't have any power to refuse to follow unconstitutional orders, then what's the point of this oath?

Nobody has tried to deny this.

What is contested is your assertion that the cops can, on-the-fly, when they see a crime, singlehandedly refuse to make an arrest, if they consider the law to be unconstitutional. It isn't up to the Supreme Court to decide what is constitutional, any cop has the power to do that - and get away with it.

Which, of course, is utter nonsense.

[shecky]

Mr. Maye's conviction has apparently been overturned. Strike me as more of a conviction due to a bad trial rather than an endorsement of the scenario in question.

His sentence was overturned. Not his conviction. So, he's off death row. If he is vindicated, how many years of appeals after the incident would it take for it to be just?

The article says "Georgia's district attorney will seek felony murder and burglary indictments against the three agents involved."

It's little solace since Johnston never had a chance in a real court.

[hgc]

Nobody has tried to deny this.

What is contested is your assertion that the cops can, on-the-fly, when they see a crime, singlehandedly refuse to make an arrest, if they consider the law to be unconstitutional. It isn't up to the Supreme Court to decide what is constitutional, any cop has the power to do that - and get away with it.

Which, of course, is utter nonsense.


Libertopia: Every man a country

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Did these two police officers maintain that not being allowed to enter one's house without a warrant is unconstitutional?

Of course Claus is trolling for a fight!

But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that they did. Shanek has posted quite often his bizarre opinion that police can refuse to enforce laws they (and only they) consider to be unconstitutional. So in this case, if the officers did (hypothetically) consider the need for a warrant to be unconstitutional, then Shanek's support of this court opinion would directly contradict his own position.

[CFLarsen]

It doesn't matter if they did.

If we go with what shanek says, no cop can ever be held responsible for any action, regardless of what other people say. Any law can be deemed unconstitutional, and, since the cop can't get punished, he doesn't even need to justify his actions.

[hgc]

Of course Claus is trolling for a fight!

But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that they did. Shanek has posted quite often his bizarre opinion that police can refuse to enforce laws they (and only they) consider to be unconstitutional. So in this case, if the officers did (hypothetically) consider the need for a warrant to be unconstitutional, then Shanek's support of this court opinion would directly contradict his own position.


Shane might say that's fine, but the homeowner has the right to shoot the cop too. Who knows what he'll come up with after the smoke clears from you planting that little bit of dissonance in that Libertarian promotion mechanism he calls a brain.

[Lonewulf]

Shane might say that's fine, but the homeowner has the right to shoot the cop too.

Naw. Just sky marshals.

Oh, wait... that's Clause.

[HarryKeogh]

Of course Claus is trolling for a fight!

But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that they did. Shanek has posted quite often his bizarre opinion that police can refuse to enforce laws they (and only they) consider to be unconstitutional. So in this case, if the officers did (hypothetically) consider the need for a warrant to be unconstitutional, then Shanek's support of this court opinion would directly contradict his own position.

Which do you think is more likely...these cops made a big, dumb mistake in standard procedure or they were violating a law because they believed it was unconstitutional.

I think it was a hell of a lot more likely it was the former. And if that's the case there's nothing hypocritical with Shanek's post.

By your (for the sake of argument) assuming they did violate a law because they believed it was unconstitutional you're making a very large leap in judgement. You're inserting a made-up situation to change the story to show Shanek to be a hypocrite. I just don't think that's fair.

[CFLarsen]

Which do you think is more likely...these cops made a big, dumb mistake in standard procedure or they were violating a law because they believed it was unconstitutional.

I think it was a hell of a lot more likely it was the former. And if that's the case there's nothing hypocritical with Shanek's post.

By your (for the sake of argument) assuming they did violate a law because they believed it was unconstitutional you're making a very large leap in judgement. You're inserting a made-up situation to change the story to show Shanek to be a hypocrite. I just don't think that's fair.

It doesn't matter if they did.

Once cops are given the right to do as they please, they don't need to justify themselves.

And shanek certainly can't demand that the cops are prosecuted.

[HarryKeogh]

Once cops are given the right to do as they please, they don't need to justify themselves.

Has Shanek argued that cops have the right to do as they please or that they don't have to enforce laws they see as unconstitutional?

The latter yes. If he has ever argued the former please provide evidence of such.

[CFLarsen]

Has Shanek argued that cops have the right to do as they please or that they don't have to enforce laws they see as unconstitutional?

What is the difference?

[chulbert]

I don't want to get too philosophical with this but when did it become known to Mr Coffin that the officers did not have cause? I'm trying to play out this scene in my head and I'm getting tripped up on the fact that, at the moment it happened, it appears Mr Coffin assaulted two people he knew were police officers simply because they were arresting his wife.

I think it hinges upon exactly what she screamed and what information she conveyed. It's clear the officers are ultimately responsible but it also appears Mr Coffin assulted two officers of the law and was justified only in retrospect.

[HarryKeogh]

What is the difference?

It's the difference between the cops being nothing more than an armed gang or a group of people sworn to uphold the law.

It's also the difference between your objection to the OP being valid or not.

If you're just here for inane arguments with people (who either have you "on ignore" or are just ignoring you) over things they never even said you should find another hobby.

[CFLarsen]

It's the difference between the cops being nothing more than an armed gang or a group of people sworn to uphold the law.

What is the difference between an armed gang and a group of people which can, on their own, without repercussions, simply determine if any law is unconstitutional or not?

Hmmm....you know what? I was wrong. It's not the same thing. It's worse than an armed gang. At least the gang isn't allowed to determine, on their own, without repercussions, if any law is unconstitutional or not. They just break it, and they go to jail.

Cops can, however, do what they want.

[Garrette]

What is the difference between an armed gang and a group of people which can, on their own, without repercussions, simply determine if any law is unconstitutional or not?

Hmmm....you know what? I was wrong. It's not the same thing. It's worse than an armed gang. At least the gang isn't allowed to determine, on their own, without repercussions, if any law is unconstitutional or not. They just break it, and they go to jail.

Cops can, however, do what they want.No. There would be repercussions. They would likely be reprimanded administratively and possibly legally (though I'm less sure about the second). In either case, they could challenge the action based on the supposed unconstitutionality of the act they were supposed to have done. It would go to trial, and the issue would be addressed.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

No. There would be repercussions. They would likely be reprimanded administratively and possibly legally (though I'm less sure about the second). In either case, they could challenge the action based on the supposed unconstitutionality of the act they were supposed to have done. It would go to trial, and the issue would be addressed.

In the real world, yes. But in Libertopia, not only would they not be charged, reprimanded or fired, they would be promoted and given a medal.

[CFLarsen]

No. There would be repercussions. They would likely be reprimanded administratively and possibly legally (though I'm less sure about the second). In either case, they could challenge the action based on the supposed unconstitutionality of the act they were supposed to have done. It would go to trial, and the issue would be addressed.

Not according to shanek.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Which do you think is more likely...these cops made a big, dumb mistake in standard procedure or they were violating a law because they believed it was unconstitutional.

I think it was a hell of a lot more likely it was the former. And if that's the case there's nothing hypocritical with Shanek's post.

By your (for the sake of argument) assuming they did violate a law because they believed it was unconstitutional you're making a very large leap in judgement. You're inserting a made-up situation to change the story to show Shanek to be a hypocrite. I just don't think that's fair.

The former is more likely. But I proposed the situation in order to try to figure out how he could possibly cheer this decision, given his long standing position on (Libertopian) police powers. If that exposes hypocrisy, then so be it.

[aerosolben]

His sentence was overturned. Not his conviction.
Fair enough. It seems that the book isn't closed on this one yet.

So, he's off death row. If he is vindicated, how many years of appeals after the incident would it take for it to be just?
You seem to be misunderstanding my point.

I'm not arguing that injustice never occurs, I'm arguing that I expect the prevailing body of case law (I'm assuming no statute directly addresses the problem) to support the idea that you have a right to defend yourself if you do not know the invader is the police. Conflating the two is like saying the legal system condones murder because OJ Simpson got off.

I don't think the Maye case undermines my point because:

a. There is substantial evidence that the trial was poorly conducted - this suggests a properly run trial (with all the same evidence, etc) would have resulted in an acquittal, which in turn means the legal system would find his actions justifiable. This is speculation, pending completion of appeals.
b. There is evidence that the night in question did not take place in a fashion which matches the hypothetical. The police claim they announced their identity - the jury may have believed Mr. Maye was lying about not hearing them. In this case, the conviction is not a condemnation of self-defense, it is a condemnation of cop killing. That doesn't mean they were correct in concluding this, but it also does not mean the conviction would stand given the hypothetical situation. Again, the jury that let OJ Simpson off probably doesn't condone murder.

It's little solace since Johnston never had a chance in a real court.
Johnston was a tragedy, but the legal system can't bring her back to life. The explanation I posted above for the Maye trial plus the Johnston and Penn suggests that self-defence is legally justified in these scenarios.

Perhaps you are trying to argue that the repeated actions of the police indicate a profound misunderstanding on their part of the rights of the self-defenders, maybe even a major systemic problem? While that may be true, the police neither make nor interpret the law, they merely enforce it. I'm not arguing that either way, I'm just interested in how the courts actually treat these incidents.