The March 14 directive, signed by Attorney General Pam Bondi, uses an obscure 18th-century law — the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 — to give law enforcement nationwide the power to bypass basic constitutional protections.
According to the memo, agents can break into a home if getting a warrant is “impracticable,” and they don’t need a judge’s approval. Instead, immigration officers can sign their own administrative warrants. The bar for action is low — a “reasonable belief” that someone might be part of a Venezuelan gang is enough.
In California remember you have Castle Doctrine. Protecting yourself, your home, and property from unwarranted unannounced invasions from ANYONE allows you to use deadly force if available
Wait. CA allows the Castle Doctrine?
A quick search shows it does. I’ll be damned.
I’ll be damned as well.
Worth noting for any Californians that it u-turns if the person stops being a threat. If you threaten and they run away, you’re now in the wrong if you shoot.
If you pull out a firearm you better fucking use it not threaten with it. because life and death is when it comes out not before.
In some states you have a duty to retreat as well. Something to consider.
I thought the whole point of Castle Doctrine is that you don’t have to retreat because your home is the place of last retreat?
That’s true pretty much everywhere. Shooting someone in the back will almost always get you charged, unless you’re a cop.
Generally speaking–and I’m not a lawyer, I’m not your lawyer, and you should ask a criminal defense attorney in your state for specifics–you can use force, including lethal force, to protect your life if you have reasonable fear for your life or safety. Generally speaking, if someone is running away from you, they’re no longer a direct threat, and therefore you can’t use force. Similarly, if you are in a reasonable fear for your life, and you shoot someone, you can not kick them while they’re bleeding on the ground.
I believe all states have some form of Castle Doctrine. Some states have a duty to retreat if you aren’t in your home/car, e.g., you have to attempt to escape first. Some states require you to use proportionate force; if they have a baseball bat, you may not be allowed to use a firearm. Know the laws specific to your state.
That’s all fair enough. I’ve seen it listed as a gotcha on some very pro-gun sites for the specific case of a thief who’s taken something, jewelery for example, and is now running away. You can’t take the offensive to get it back. (At least not with your gun. I expect trackling them to the ground would be fine?)
That gets much, much more state specific. I can tell you that a lot of stores with loss-prevention officers aren’t keen on having them tackle shoplifters, since that can result in massive losses from lawsuits.
Wait…that’s not true everywhere?
…Except cops. You do not have a legal right to resist illegal actions by police. The ONLY state where that’s a legal right is Indiana. Look, I get it, you should have that right everywhere, but if you shoot a cop that’s illegally breaking into your home, you will be arrested, charged, and convicted, IF you survive. And you probably won’t.
Should you shoot them anyways? Absolutely. Just understand what the result will be.
What makes a cop a cop? Could we establish a new town, which would of course have its own police department, and everyone in that town is part of the department.
Yes, it’s a bit of a facetious question. But we are entering very stupid times.
This article implies that you wouldn’t be breaking the law if you shot a cop entering your home unannounced and without a warrant:
https://campbelllawobserver.com/cops-not-robbers-the-clash-between-no-knock-warrants-and-the-castle-doctrine/
It also says that the cops are allowed to kill you, so having followed the law and being innocent will be small comfort.
Well shit too bad Indiana hates my kind
I know, right? It’s the broken clock that’s so broken that it’s only gotten the time right once.
Guess I need to move to CA.