They Never Accidentally Shoot People, Either

One particularly disturbing trend I've found in covering the rise of SWAT-style paramilitary raids is that criminals are catching on to the trend.  I get several stories a week about crooks dressing up as raiding cops to make their way into a target's home. 

Which puts homeowners in a heck of a predicament.  Even if police do knock and announce themselves, should you let them in?

The latest example comes from Penn Hills, Pennsylvania:

Rodger Macek thought something was wrong with the wood-burning stove in the basement of his Penn Hills home when he heard a loud bang about 5:30 a.m. Monday.

Yet when the Beechford Road man came downstairs to investigate, he was met by four armed men dressed in dark clothing. Two of the men wore jackets with the word "police" in large letters across the front.

[...]

One of the intruders ordered him to the kitchen floor, put a gun to Macek's head and demanded to know where the money and drugs were hidden.

Not terribly different from the way most SWAT raids are handled.  I bring up this case, though, because the victim gave a quote I found pretty amusing:

"I knew it wasn't the cops because they don't bust through your door wearing ski masks," said Macek, 47.

Oh my.  You wanna' tell him, or should I?

Comments

Eric | November 18, 2006, 10:41am | #

You know, it's gettin so you can't even trust an armed man who kicks your door in and starts shouting orders anymore.

thoreau | November 18, 2006, 10:41am | #

"It appears that the robbers may have targeted the wrong house."

Fortunately, a SWAT team would never do that!

kwais | November 18, 2006, 11:43am | #

Man that one link about the Ruttenburgs really really angers me. I wonder if there is something that the man can't do. Federal charges, sue, something.

That is a huge injustice. A huge injustice of a waste of taxpayer money, and a huge injustice against the man.

Fuck dude, that angers me so.

crap-action-jackson | November 18, 2006, 11:44am | #

That video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rwrY8-sbwo&eurl=) is amazing....

I especially like the insignia at the beginning...

Joseph | November 18, 2006, 11:53am | #

Geez, I hate this wussy carping about guns and violence. It's an American cultural thing, okay? This isn't Sweden. Big deal.

Joseph Majsterski | November 18, 2006, 12:03pm | #

Damn it, thoreau, you beat me to it. But I should've guessed someone would've seen that money quote before me.

Eddy | November 18, 2006, 12:04pm | #

Are they sure it wasn't just a swat team that went to the wrong address? You know how pesky jurisdiction lines can be.

M | November 18, 2006, 12:38pm | #

"Police from Penn Hills and several nearby departments arrived within minutes and tried to surprise the suspects by not using their lights and sirens."

So the way to tell they're not real cops is if the guys acting like cops are followed by guys acting like criminals. No, wait, it's if the guys acting like criminals are followed by guys acting like civilians. No, wait...

Egon | November 18, 2006, 1:01pm | #

There is a HUGE difference between a ski mask and a balaclava. Jeez.

Shem | November 18, 2006, 1:13pm | #

I wonder if anyone has ever called the police on a SWAT team that failed to identify themselves.

Jennifer Emick | November 18, 2006, 1:32pm | #

When I lived in Houseon, this was a common occurrence- they would attack immigrant families who hoarded cash at home; the neighbors rarely called the police, and the victims thought they were cops even aftyer the robberies.

Dave B. | November 18, 2006, 1:51pm | #

Shem -

See Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America by Radley Balko. If I remember correctly, there is an incident in there in which police responded to a call about a SWAT team invading a house.

Isaac Bartram | November 18, 2006, 1:53pm | #

There was a rash of these in the early 90s in Florida (and for all I know in the rest of the country).

For a while it looked like the cops might rethink their policy on no-knock raids but I suppose they're just too much fun.

Isaac Bartram | November 18, 2006, 1:59pm | #

Incidentally one of the reasons the cops were rethinking things is that it occurred to them that they might be putting themselves at excessive risk.

Indeed there were cases where homeowners defended themselves with one case ending in a homeowner killing a cop. It was more likely to end the other way though.

However instead of questioning the policy in the end they just ramped up the firepower.

The Wine Commonsewer | November 18, 2006, 2:42pm | #

Would Wyatt Earp's rampage through Arizona be considered on the same level as a modern day SWAT raids?

The Wine Commonsewer | November 18, 2006, 2:52pm | #

Kwais, no kidding, that is just crap. I don't expect much to change though.

Cops pull shit all the time. I remember a cop in my town that rear ended an old man at a stop light. He got out of his patrol car and wrote the old man a ticket for backing up at a traffic light. Everybody knew the cop was lying but it didn't make a bit of difference. The old man lost his DL anyway.

R C Dean | November 18, 2006, 3:13pm | #

Probably safer if it is robbers busting into your house instead of a SWAT team. I hear about more people adn their pets killed by SWAT than home invaders, who at least know that they might go to jail if they grease someone.

M | November 18, 2006, 3:27pm | #

Here come da judge, or at least his representatives:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/east/s_479616.html

Nobody Important | November 18, 2006, 4:52pm | #

I don't know about other states, but in here in Colorado, I've noticed an increase in the use of unmarked police cars for traffic enforcement over the past five or so years.

For various reasons, I've always tried to spot unmarked police cars as a habit. In the 1980s and 1990s, it was pretty easy: always plain white with the big spot lights on the side. That changed around 2000.

I really started paying attention after Lacy Miller was murdered by a police impersonator in January 2003. For two years after that (2003 - 2004), while I noticed many marked cars on patrol and at accident scenes, every single traffic stop I witnessed was by an unmarked car.

Whenever there's an incident with a police impersonator, the police spokesperson gives the standard reminding women to "drive to a well lit area and/or call 911." In other words, fail to pull over for the police, and maybe you won't be charged. And cell phones always work.

While such worthless advice "would certainly be the right way to handle genuine police officers making bona fide traffic stops, this method fails to protect motorists from the ill-intentioned. The real bad guys carry guns, so locked car doors and cracked windows would avail little by way of protection."

Unmarked cars are the police going out of their way to hide their identity as police, while still expecting civilians to submit to their authority.

Other than conditioning the population to stop for and obey any jackass that flashes a red light from his dashboard, what is the added value of using unmarked units for revenue enhancement purposes? Even New York state put a stop to that practice 10 years ago.

I guess the continued use of unmarked police cars for revenue collections is worth more than the few lives lost to police impersonators.

While not a large problem right now, it probably will be in a decade or so if what I see is a trend and it continues. And if somebody, in genuine fear for her life, makes a mistake and ends up using force to defend herself, expect the use of deadly force against civilians to escalate as a response.

Remember the mantra of officer survival: "No matter what happens, I will go home to my family at the end of my shift." Not applicable to civilians.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | November 18, 2006, 4:52pm | #

What Roger meants to say is that cops don't do that to WHITE people. It's Pittsburgh, after all.

Nobody Important | November 18, 2006, 4:59pm | #

PS. Back onto the original subject -- if the police were genuinely interested in announcing themselves, and making sure that the homeowner was aware of their presence, they could always use the phone first. Especially at zero dark thirty in the morning.

Not a perfect solution, but certainly better than yelling "Police!" while the battering ram is in mid-arc.

Godfrey | November 18, 2006, 5:06pm | #

Cops or no cops--anyone who wakes me up from a deep, peaceful sleep gets a fuckin' bullet.

Just ask my ex-neighbor's ex-dog.

Larry A | November 18, 2006, 5:32pm | #

if the police were genuinely interested in announcing themselves, and making sure that the homeowner was aware of their presence, they could always use the phone first.

And if they hear the phone ringing from the house across the street from their target, it would be a hint.

In most cases the cops could just call and tell the people to get their lawyer and come down to the station.

Not a perfect solution, but certainly better than yelling "Police!" while the battering ram is in mid-arc.

It appears that they start yelling when the door's in mid-arc. Then you have five or six cops high on adrenaline screaming different things, like that's going to work.

I particularly liked the video of seven or eight officers in full gear with rifles charging into a mobile home. How did they all fit? What an opportunity for disaster.

The Wine Commonsewer | November 18, 2006, 6:48pm | #

Godfrey, can we rent your services? Of course, you better bring a lot of bullets.

Can you do coyotes too?

BTW, last guy that did that in Californicate, shot the neighbor's barking dog I mean, got 4 years. Must be true, it was in the paper.

Godfrey | November 18, 2006, 8:49pm | #

Wine Commonsewer: ...last guy that did that in Californicate, shot the neighbor's barking dog I mean, got 4 years.

The trick is to make it look like a suicide.

The Wine Commonsewer | November 18, 2006, 10:12pm | #

Godfrey, I was just screaming at the kids because the electric bill was through the ceiling and then I read your comment and LOL.

The Wine Commonsewer | November 18, 2006, 10:30pm | #

Scene: a black, lowered '61 Thunderbird with Moon hubcaps parked in a deserted business section of town. 4 high school guys bullshitting with each other. No booze. No drugs. It's Wednesday night.

Blue Meanie: Get outta the car

Blue Meanie: Let's see your driver license

TWC: I wasn't driving.

Blue Meanie: Let's see it anyway.

TWC: I wasn't driving.

Second Blue Meanie looks through back window, uses flashlight to check the floor.

TWC: Hey, you can't look in there.

Blue Meanie: The eyes cannot trespass.

(swear to god, he said that)

TWC: What about Peeping Toms?

Blue Meanie: Come here.

Motions. TWC follows Blue Meanie around the front of the building.

Blue Meanie: Let's see your DL

TWC: I wasn't driving.

Blue Meanie unsnaps his .38, removes from holster and sort of paraphrases Michael when he says either your DL or your brains is going to be out.................

TWC: It's right here officer. Here you go.

Blue Meanie: thanks.

sometime later.

Blue Meanies: Okay, you can go.

kwais | November 19, 2006, 6:17am | #

I don't think taking a confrontation attitude towards all cops is helpful. They are people like all of us, and a large part are trying to do their part to make things better. A lot of them are patriots and good citizens.

The problem is whey they are not held to standards of behavior. When police are not policed. Or when their authority exceeds what it should. Ie drugs and enforcing morals.

Near as I can tell police are a good thing. The trick is to have them working for us, the citizens. Not working for themselves the mayor, or whoever else.

jon | November 19, 2006, 6:59am | #

Here's an interesting scenario: suppose the raiders are bail agents? According to some 1872 Supreme Court case (Taylor v Taintor), they can go into any place the bond skipper is thought to be (since revised in some States, though the case hasn't been overturned). And they can barge in, take custody of whoever they have papers for, be armed to the teeth, and defend themselves in the process. Sounds like a great cover for a criminal enterprise intended to separate drug dealers from their earnings and stock (and pick up more guns on the way).

Of course, that would never happen.

John M. Joy | November 19, 2006, 8:02am | #

Kwais:

By definition, they work for the politicians.

JMJ

Isaac Bartram | November 19, 2006, 9:30am | #

jon

While bounty hunters don't need warrants etc they also do not have sovereigh immunity. Wrong address and it's an arrest and possible jail time. Shoot an unarmed person, likewise. Rough up anyone other than the intended target (or use more force than necessary), likewise.

That's why bounty hunters rarely use this tactic. They prefer to get their quarry when he is in a place where he is the vulnerable one.

okfuture | November 19, 2006, 10:23am | #

It is painfully obvious that the dramatic increase in paramilitary raids against citizens is a prelude to further encroachments on the liberty of the American people. The sad part: we are accepting it. The road to tyranny invariably includes an element of muscular state presence, in the form of what most would consider "normal" or typical law enforcement. Thus the populace becomes desensitized to the nasty business. In fact, shows like "Cops" cater to the efforts of the state to normalize brutality and egregious "search and destroy" methods by the police. And though there are a few bold men like Mr. Balko that organize and speak against it . . . alas, we accept it.

cliff | November 19, 2006, 12:55pm | #

From Wikipedia, under G. Gordon Liddy:

August 26, 1994 - "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests." ... "They've got a big target on there, ATF. Don't shoot at that, because they've got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots.... Kill the sons of bitches."

I say that this is good advice. Any time an uninvited intruder breaks in into your home that wishes to do you harm, either by robbing you of your valuables or your life is a criminal. Just because police have the force of law on thier side doesn't make some of these "no knock raids" right.

I see it as the purest form of police brutality. Going into a person's home, his refuge, the last place a person can retreat to and expect to be safe to make an arrest. An arrest that could be easily carried out in other places where a person is more vulnerable and easier to handle than his home.

Remember when those 2 guys in LA robbed a bank with automatic weapons and flak jackets? This is the exact situation that calls for Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT). It seemed to me that the police were a lot more concerned about thier own safety than those they swore to protect.

How about Columbine High School? 2 punk kids held a whole school hostage while the SWAT teams scratched thier butts and hid behind fire trucks while the killers went on an absolute rampage in the school. The police made the inoocent students come out and be searched rather than go in to face of danger they signed up for and take the perps out.

I have read that the police often leave a house open after a raid so the occupants feel more violated and thier property can be ransacked by thieves.

I think that the protection of your Constitutional Rights should merit a response equivalent or greater than the government's attempt to take them from you.

O'Brien | November 19, 2006, 1:17pm | #

How does one man assert his power over another...By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation...If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever.

NSC | November 19, 2006, 2:52pm | #

God, now it's the cops fault? I really think you have had one too many speeding tickets.

The Wine Commonsewer | November 19, 2006, 3:35pm | #

Kwais, and you are right, a confrontational attitude toward the police is most unhelpful. However, after one has been rousted for the 90th time one's patience runs out. Now that I'm old I'm a little more reasonable. But once I got to be about 25 cops no longer paid the slightest bit of attention to anything I was doing.

The real problem is harsh reality, if you take G Gordon Liddy's advice, you are going to die. Or do a lot of time. Those guys have all the really good weapons and there's more of them.

The Wine Commonsewer | November 19, 2006, 3:44pm | #

Okay, I see that I read an over broad meaning into Liddy's remark. Apparently he was referring to a specific event where the government begins a program of weapons confiscation using ATF agents going door to door.

tarran | November 19, 2006, 4:30pm | #

Violence against "law enforcement" is a very bad idea on multiple levels:

1) As TWC pointed out, there is a near inexhaustible supply of them, they have guns, APC's, air support, and radios. Since they will escalate until they have crushed their opposition, if you offer resistence using deadly force, you will die. The only question is how long it will take, and how many neighbors, friends and family will be injured or killed alongside of you.

2) The various governments that rule over us have in place a very sophisticated propaganda machine that use each act of violent resistance to further two broad themes amongst their subjects:
a) that these dangerous people would ravage the peaceful subjects if the government officials weren't there to put them down.
b) that anyone who resists is either stupid, crazy, or evil.

Item b) is crucial, it creates a meaningful barrier to people joining together to meaningfully resist the state (marching giant puppets down city streets is not meaningful resistance).

Item a) creates a serious cognitive dissonance amongst most of the subjects concerning their relationship with the rulers. The dissonance is created by the conflict between the accepted impression that the rulers as protectors and the reality that the rulers are merely members of the most powerful and ruthless gangs within a territory.

As emotionally satisfying as it would be to turn things around satisfying as it would be to burn ATF agents alive, to gut-shoot jerks like the SWAT cop who shot Sal Culosi, or to rudely grope TSA agents, such actions are actually beneficial to the rulers and harmful to the subjects.

People only begin standing up to the rulers when they see the rulers as being more dangerous to them than their fellow men. Don't hand the rulers easy fodder for their propaganda mills.

Dave Hardy | November 19, 2006, 4:53pm | #

There was some of that back in the 70s. One local gang specializing in ripping off (other) drug dealers got some police uniforms, and even bought a used squad car. They'd "bust" a drug supplier's apartment, and leave the guy wondering why the police seized his inventory and money and then departed without arresting anyone. It was easy pickings, since the victim was in no position to call 911 and report a robbery.

douglas westerman | November 19, 2006, 6:21pm | #

We should pass laws like in Europe saying you can't wear Muslim veils, and include a "ski mask" clause, and include the cops, then when they do wear them, you know they're either bad guys, or cops on their way to a ski trip. Narrows it down anyway.

Larry A | November 19, 2006, 7:11pm | #

We should pass laws...

This is the problem, not the solution.

We desperately need to get rid of a whole bunch of laws. Start by rescending any law that prohibits possession of anything that more than 5% of the population wants to have or prohibits doing anything that more than 5% of the population wants to do.

The only legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of the individual people it represents.

Allen | November 19, 2006, 7:17pm | #

SWAT teams aren't the problem. The problem is not giving them enough training and the low legal standards needed to put them to use. Using force that may seem above and beyond the "need" helps with issues such as officer safety. The problem is in when you put a SWAT team to use for relatively benign situations such as arresting someone for relatively minor drug possesion based on a tip from a shady character.

As for COlumbine that's a gross mischaracterization. The common thought, training and policy at the time was to wait until you have enough force, asses the situation and such. One of the lessons of Columbine was that quick action was needed in certain situations. An example of that change was when Dimebag Darrell was murdered in Columbus. Instead of waiting for backup let alone SWAT, a Columbus police officer responded alone and shot and killed the gunman. Had he not done that it's likely the outcome would've been worse.

thoreau | November 19, 2006, 8:59pm | #

I am disturbed by some of the comments that seem to advocate violence. I oppose the use of violence for just about any purpose short of self-defense, and even then only as a last resort. We Americans have plenty of non-violent means with which to defend our freedom. Those non-violent means might not seem very satisfying when your adrenaline is up, but they are far superior for a number of reasons, both moral and practical.

Tim in PA | November 19, 2006, 8:59pm | #

Allen partially addresses the problem :

"Using force that may seem above and beyond the "need" helps with issues such as officer safety. The problem is in when you put a SWAT team to use for relatively benign situations such as arresting someone for relatively minor drug possesion based on a tip from a shady character. "

The use of a SWAT team always brings with it inherent dangers -- wrong house, wrong person, and so on. You're starting a violent encounter with lots of heavily armed men, against someone who might do anything, and who may not not even be the person you expect.

Sometimes these dangers are far outweighed by other dangers, and the SWAT team is a good idea. It's using them for everday crap that is the problem, because you're introducing more risk than was there to begin with for everyone concerned.

jkII | November 19, 2006, 11:28pm | #

"I oppose the use of violence for just about any purpose short of self-defense, and even then only as a last resort."

thoreau,

This is music to a thug's ear. Thugs are not stupid, in fact, they are cunning. They'll ask for just a little compromise on your part in exchange for some peace now, wait for the right moment, then ask for a another. And so on. You might not know when it is time to exercise violence as the "last resort" is until it is too late.

The Wine Commonsewer | November 19, 2006, 11:54pm | #

jkII

The last resort has already passed.

thoreau | November 20, 2006, 12:15am | #

With talk like this, I'm not sure I want to hang out here anymore. This is the sort of talk that gets the FBI interested in a site, and I want no part of that. If this continues, I don't know how much longer I'll be hanging out here.

thoreau | November 20, 2006, 12:21am | #

Now I understand why the LP requires its members to sign a pledge renouncing the initiation of force to advance political goals. It isn't just a philosophical purity test, it's also a way to disavow whatever crazy talk some of its members might engage in.

jf | November 20, 2006, 12:29am | #

thoreau,

I understand your concerns. Sadly, having to fear the FBI is probably another symptom of what some around here fear.

That said, I completely agree with you that, no matter how tempting it may seem, advocating violence against any government official is pointless; acting it out will only make things worse. I also think that while our country has major problems that could be easily fixed if enough people wanted, the fact remains that we still live freer than probably 99% of everyone who has ever lived on this planet. Let's fight the good fight against law enforcement abuses by shining a light on them, which is usually how things get changed for the better.

NoStar | November 20, 2006, 12:41am | #

Godfrey and TWC,

The best way to handle the neighbor's barking dog is to make an anonymous call from a payphone and tell the cops there is a crack house at the offending dog's address.

During the ensuing raid the SWAT squad
will kill the family dog, free of charge.

The Wine Commonsewer | November 20, 2006, 12:46am | #

Thow-row,

Just 'cuz yer not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. :-)

I'm on that bus man.

However, I think we're already on the FIBBIES ten most whack job political crazies list anyway.

jkii | November 20, 2006, 1:20am | #

"That said, I completely agree with you that, no matter how tempting it may seem, advocating violence against any government official is pointless; acting it out will only make things worse."

That is just so redcoat.

jf | November 20, 2006, 1:57am | #

jkii,

If you are ready to form an army to overthrow the government, and also have drawn up a list of grievances (a "Declaration of Independence", if you will), then by all means make your case. Otherwise, we're talking Michigan Militia nonsense here, which isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

zach | November 20, 2006, 10:01am | #

No-knock raids and the overuse of SWAT-style tactics in general are clearly a problem. Hopefully it's a problem we'll see dealt with meaningfully in our lifetimes, and if you feel strongly enough about the issue, you'll do what you can to raise awareness about the problem and hold politicans responsible, like what Radley Balko's doing right now. That's if you actually want to do something about the situation.

If on the other hand you're more interested in proving to the world what a big tough guy you are, you'll talk about forcefully overthrowing the government and comparing our situation to the American Revolution. Then the rest of the country can go back to ignoring you in peace.

R C Dean | November 20, 2006, 10:22am | #

I oppose the use of violence for just about any purpose short of self-defense, and even then only as a last resort.

Sure. And I would call an armed gang kicking in my front door to be the last resort.

We Americans have plenty of non-violent means with which to defend our freedom.

They don't seem to be working, do they.

TrickyVic | November 20, 2006, 12:03pm | #

When is everyone just going to accept that law enforcement officers are a special class of citizen who has a greater right to life than the regular citizen.

Radley Balko | November 20, 2006, 1:02pm | #

Advocating your right to home defense is fine. Specifically advocating violence against government officials is missing the point, and rather foolish.

It's also of the few things we don't tolerate in H&R discussion threads.

So please keep your outrage well short of wishing death or bodily harm upon law enforcement officers.

TrickyVic | November 20, 2006, 1:29pm | #

"""So please keep your outrage well short of wishing death or bodily harm upon law enforcement officers."""

Why just law enforcement officers?

We shouldn't wish death or bodily harm upon ANYONE regardless of occupation.

Why should law enforcement be special?

R C Dean | November 20, 2006, 2:37pm | #

So please keep your outrage well short of wishing death or bodily harm upon law enforcement officers.

I have the same right of self defense against law enforcement as I do against anyone else. You can look it up - the affirmative defense to homicide does not generally contain an exception stating it is not available if the corpse is wearing a badge.

zach | November 20, 2006, 3:28pm | #

We shouldn't wish death or bodily harm upon ANYONE regardless of occupation.

Sure we should. Think OBL and Zarqawi. And uh whoever's the #3 guy at the time.

Nobody Important | November 20, 2006, 3:50pm | #

R C Dean | November 20, 2006, 2:37pm
I have the same right of self defense against law enforcement as I do against anyone else. You can look it up - the affirmative defense to homicide does not generally contain an exception stating it is not available if the corpse is wearing a badge.

Colorado Revised Statutes 18-8-103. Resisting arrest.

(1) A person commits resisting arrest if he knowingly prevents or attempts to prevent a peace officer, acting under color of his official authority, from effecting an arrest of the actor or another, by:

(a) Using or threatening to use physical force or violence against the peace officer or another; or

(b) Using any other means which creates a substantial risk of causing bodily injury to the peace officer or another.

(2) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was attempting to make an arrest which in fact was unlawful, if he was acting under color of his official authority, and in attempting to make the arrest he was not resorting to unreasonable or excessive force giving rise to the right of self-defense. A peace officer acts "under color of his official authority" when, in the regular course of assigned duties, he is called upon to make, and does make, a judgment in good faith based upon surrounding facts and circumstances that an arrest should be made by him.

(3) The term "peace officer" as used in this section and section 18-8-104 means a peace officer in uniform or, if out of uniform, one who has identified himself by exhibiting his credentials as such peace officer to the person whose arrest is attempted.

(4) Resisting arrest is a class 2 misdemeanor.


Colorado Revised Statutes 18-8-104. Obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical services provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer.


(1) (a) A person commits obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical services provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer when, by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, such person knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the peace by a peace officer, acting under color of his or her official authority; knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the prevention, control, or abatement of fire by a firefighter, acting under color of his or her official authority; knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the administration of medical treatment or emergency assistance by an emergency medical service provider or rescue specialist, acting under color of his or her official authority; or knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the administration of emergency care or emergency assistance by a volunteer, acting in good faith to render such care or assistance without compensation at the place of an emergency or accident.

(b) To assure that animals used in law enforcement or fire prevention activities are protected from harm, a person commits obstructing a peace officer or firefighter when, by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, he or she knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders any such animal.

(2) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was acting in an illegal manner, if he was acting under color of his official authority as defined in section 18-8-103 (2).

TrickyVic | November 20, 2006, 3:53pm | #

Zach I think that's covered under self-defense in which we are talking. I guess, for you, I should have included, "except for those who attempt to do us harm."

Of course we shouldn't wish death or bodily harm in your example, it should be a reality not a wish. But hey, take that one up with the President.

TrickyVic | November 20, 2006, 4:07pm | #

"""Colorado Revised Statutes 18-8-103. Resisting arrest.

(1) A person commits resisting arrest if he knowingly prevents or attempts to prevent a peace officer, acting under color of his official authority, from effecting an arrest of the actor or another, by:

(a) Using or threatening to use physical force or violence against the peace officer or another; or

(b) Using any other means which creates a substantial risk of causing bodily injury to the peace officer or another.""""

The missing ones that never gets printed.

(c) claiming to know your rights

(d) asking "What did I do wrong?"

(e) denying the crime occurred

This goes to my point. An agent of the state has more rights/privileges than non-agents.

Cartman | November 20, 2006, 8:47pm | #

thoreau
With talk like this, I'm not sure I want to hang out here anymore. This is the sort of talk that gets the FBI interested in a site, and I want no part of that. If this continues, I don't know how much longer I'll be hanging out here.

"Screw you guys...I'm going home"

Isaac Bartram | November 20, 2006, 9:19pm | #

...knowingly prevents or attempts to prevent a peace officer...

The key word here is "knowingly".

How is anyone supposed to know that the black-clad something in the dark is a "peace officer" or some dude that just wants your cash and/or your stash*? And on top of that may be perfectly willing to off you when he's done?

The fact of the matter is you don't. And it should come as no surprise if citizens react to raids and home invasions with force.

If cops don't have a death wish (which I suspect an awful lot do) they need to rethink their procedures.

There is a difference between advocating targetting policemen for muder and suggesting that irresponsible police tactics invite extreme defensive actions.

*Of course the black-clad "peace officer" is just some some dude that wants your cash and/or your stash too; but that's a different story. He's there to deprive you of liberty as well.

Al Jackson | November 21, 2006, 8:28am | #

"What is it that gentleman wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!

I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me a no-knock raid, in which case I will junk all this nonsense about liberty and grab my ankles."

-- Patrick Henry, 2006 revision