"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. If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms insists upon a firefight, give them a firefight. Just remember, they're wearing flak jackets and you're better off shooting for the head. I was talking about a situation in which law enforcement agents come smashing into a house, don't say who they are and their guns are out, they're shooting and they're in the wrong place. This has happened time and time again. The ATF has gone in and gotten the wrong person in the wrong place. The law is that if somebody is shooting at you, using deadly force, the mere fact that they are a law enforcement officer, if they are in the wrong, does not mean you are obliged to allow yourself to be killed so your kinfolk can have a wrongful death action. You are legally entitled to defend yourself and I was speaking of exactly those kind of situations. If you're going to do that, you should know that they're wearing body armor so you should use a head shot. Now all I'm doing is stating the law."
-FBI agent G Gordon Liddy, attorney at law and convicted felon Watergate burgler on his radio show
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels signs police-entry bill into law
By Eric Bradner
Evansville Courier & Press
March 21, 2012
INDIANAPOLIS — Although he said it was a "close call" that took days of consideration, Gov. Mitch Daniels signed into law a measure that gives Hoosiers the right to use force to resist police officers who illegally enter their homes.
The new law is a reversal from last year's controversial Indiana Supreme Court decision. Advocates called it an effort to protect against rogue police – although Daniels acknowledged that the law might create perception problems.
"In the real world, there will almost never be a situation in which these extremely narrow conditions are met. So as a matter of law, law enforcement officers will be better protected than before, not less so," Daniels said.
"What is troubling to law enforcement officers, and to me, is the chance that citizens hearing reports of change will misunderstand what the law says."
It was the only bill the Indiana General Assembly passed during the 2012 legislative session that the Republican governor was seriously considering sending back with a veto. His signature means he rejected nothing lawmakers sent him this year.
The issue was sparked by the state high court's decision in the case of Richard Barnes, an Evansville man who fought a police officer who entered his house while responding to a call reporting a domestic dispute.
The court found that officers sometimes enter homes without warrants for reasons protected by the law, such as pursuing suspects or preventing the destruction of evidence.
"In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment," the court said. "As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance."
The new law only gives Hoosiers the right to resist officers who they believe are acting unlawfully. Using deadly force against an officer is only protected to prevent serious bodily injury.
Groups such as the Fraternal Order of Police and other law enforcement organizations had lobbied against the measure. Rep. Linda Lawson, the No. 2-ranking House Democrat and a former police officer, said it will create "open season on law enforcement."
In a statement announcing his decision to sign Senate Enrolled Act 1, Daniels sought to underscore that the law does not create what some opponents said would be an open season on law enforcement officers.
"Today is an important day to say: Indiana's outstanding law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day to protect all Hoosiers. The right thing to do is cooperate with them in every way possible. This law is not an invitation to use violence or force against law enforcement officers," he said.
"In fact, it restricts when an individual can use force, specifically deadly force, on an officer, so don't try anything. Chances are overwhelming you will be breaking the law and wind up in far worse trouble as a result."
In the waning days of this year's session, lawmakers complained that the measure had become dramatized. House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, said what lawmakers did was write a jury instruction.
Still, Daniels took meetings this week with advocates and opponents, and said the law's message is something to consider. "It's a close call," he said.
NOPD Officers Get Decades in Prison for Killings
Bloomberg Business
April 04, 2012
NEW ORLEANS -- Four New Orleans police officers were sentenced to 38 to 65 years in prison for convictions including violating the civil rights of two people killed a week after Hurricane Katrina devastated the city in 2005.
U.S. District Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt in New Orleans sentenced a fifth officer today to six years in prison for covering up the crimes.
A federal jury in August convicted officers Kenneth Bowen, Robert Gisevius, Robert Faulcon and Anthony Villavaso of opening fire on unarmed black civilians on the city’s Danziger Bridge and conspiring with others to cover up their actions. The fifth, homicide detective Arthur “Archie” Kaufman, was convicted of conspiring to make the shootings appear justified.
“We hope that today’s sentences give a measure of peace and closure to the victims of this terrible shooting, who have suffered unspeakable pain and who have waited so patiently for justice to be done,” Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s civil rights division, said in an e-mailed statement. “The officers who shot innocent people on the bridge and then went to great lengths to cover up their own crimes have finally been held accountable for their actions.”
The civil rights violations caused the deaths of James Brissette and Ronald Madison, the jury found, which meant that the four officers directly involved faced a maximum punishment of life in prison. Bowen was sentenced to 40 years, Faulcon to 65, Gisevius to 40, Villavaso to 38, and Kaufman to six.
After Katrina
The shootings took place on Sept. 4, 2005, one week after Katrina flooded most of New Orleans and one day after stranded evacuees were airlifted and bused to safety.
A July 2010 indictment accused Bowen, Gisevius, Faulcon and Villavaso of firing on a family on the east side of the Danziger Bridge, killing James Brissette, 17, and wounding four other people. The defendants said they were responding to a policewoman’s radio call of officers and rescue workers in danger.
The U.S. accused Faulcon of shooting Ronald Madison, a 40- year-old man with mental disabilities, on the other side of the bridge. The jury said Faulcon’s actions didn’t amount to murder.
Kaufman, the homicide detective, was charged with joining the officers in a conspiracy to conceal what happened at the bridge. Kaufman was convicted on 10 counts including obstruction of justice and fabrication of evidence.
‘See His Father’
Engelhardt said at the sentencing hearing today that he was restricted by federal guidelines or would have imposed shorter prison terms. He noted that Faulcon’s son was born after Katrina.
“He will never see his father outside a prison wall under this sentencing scheme,” Engelhardt said.
The judge said that five other police officers who pleaded guilty received much lower sentences. “One can only be astonished and deeply troubled by the plea bargains allowed in the Danziger Bridge matter,” he said.
“Using liars to convict liars is no way to pursue justice,” Engelhardt said, referring to cooperating officers who testified against the defendants.
Federal prosecutors wouldn’t have had a case without enlisting the help of cooperating witnesses, Perez, the assistant attorney general, said in a conference call with reporters today.
‘Prosecution Fell Apart’
“It’s important to understand where we were in the year 2008, which was three-plus years after the shooting and the state prosecution fell apart, frankly, and we had nothing,” Perez said. “We had to build a case from scratch and you don’t go to the witness store and pick out witnesses to build a case. You have to do your leg work and see where you can go.”
Attorneys for the four accused shooters depicted their clients at trial as dedicated officers who refused to abandon their posts, rescuing residents from Katrina’s floodwaters both before and after the shootings.
The defendants claimed they were responding to gunfire and that they believed the shooting victims were a danger to themselves and others. They also denied involvement in a cover- up.
The U.S. said at trial there was no evidence that any of the civilians had guns.
The judge said the “context of Katrina cannot be ignored” in the case. This included widespread looting and escalating fear of gunfire, Engelhardt said.
No comments:
Post a Comment