Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                          SANDY SANDFORT
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>Nope, not true.  Say what you will about California, but the one
>thing it did right was pass a law that said anyone found in your
>house at night is presumptively a threat to which you may respond
>with deadly force.  Shoot on sight, in other words.

I find it hard to believe "anyone".  If "anyone" happens to be
law enforcement, as has been proven again and again: yer screwed
no matter what (either dead or in jail forever).  //cerridwyn//

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

I wrote:

> >[In California] anyone found in your house at night is
> >presumptively a threat to which you may respond with deadly 
> >force.  Shoot on sight, in other words.

To which Cerridwyn responded:
 
> I find it hard to believe "anyone".  If "anyone" happens to be
> law enforcement, as has been proven again and again: yer screwed
> no matter what (either dead or in jail forever). 

Hard to believe or not, that's the presumption.  Now in law,
it's a rebuttable presumption, but it's still a get-out-of-jail
card if you did not know the shadow at the end of the call was 
a cop who was LAWFULLY in your house.  If that last sentence
was not clear, please realize that cops who knowingly break the 
law lose most of the special immunities their status normally 
gives them.  The jury will decide if you acted reasonably, of
course, but the presumption is that you did until the cops can
rebut it with sufficient evidence.

In any event, I still think it's better to be judged by twelve 
than to be carried by six, n'est-ce pas?


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~