Homeowner has "right to resist" LEO's

Posted by: MattJ

Homeowner has "right to resist" LEO's - 03/20/07 11:15 AM

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

"SARASOTA -- 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."

The fight started when Coffin heard his wife screaming in pain, went into the garage and saw two deputies arresting her on the floor.

The deputies were trying to serve Coffin with civil papers that had been given five days earlier. They had entered the garage even though they did not have a search warrant or arrest warrant.

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.

A jury was picked for the trial Monday. But the judge granted a motion by Coffin's attorneys, Derek Byrd and Brett McIntosh, and acquitted John Coffin on five of six felony charges Tuesday morning.

Coffin pleaded no contest to the remaining charge of taking a Taser gun from one of the deputies during the fight.

Before handing down the sentence, De Furia asked how long Coffin spent in jail after his initial arrest.

"You spent eight days in the Sarasota County jail," De Furia said. "That's your sentence. No probation."

Relatives applauded, and Coffin walked out of the courthouse with only a $358 bill for court costs. The sentence surprised even defense attorneys, who had suggested De Furia sentence Coffin to probation.

Prosecutors had asked for more than a year of prison time because of "the totality of the case" and the injuries to deputies James Lutz and Stacy Ferris, whose name is now Stacy Brandau.

The two deputies testified about their injuries Tuesday -- three blows to the head with the butt of the Taser gun knocked Lutz unconscious.

"I just ask that he doesn't get away with this," Brandau told the judge.

Assistant State Attorney Jeff Young told the judge the case "could have been over in five seconds" if the Coffins "had simply come out and cooperated."

"That is a man who took it upon himself to beat up two police officers," Young 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."
Posted by: hunterkell

Re: Homeowner has "right to resist" LEO's - 03/20/07 02:11 PM

Being a LEO is a tough job. Everyday you are required to make the right decisions.

Here's the thing: the 2 LEO's knowingly entered into a residence to serve "civil" papers. LEO's have it drilled into their heads from day 1 at the police academy about how the legal system jealously guards the rights of citizens and their right to privacy.

Here is another thing: a lot of new LEO's think the legal system is there to help, protect, or look out for police officers...it's not.

If anything the legal system will pursue criminal charges against a LEO quicker then it will a private citizen.

just my opinion,
Kel
Posted by: Fletch1

Re: Homeowner has "right to resist" LEO's - 03/21/07 08:50 PM

He apparently got convicted of something...just not the felonies they were looking for. It's a slippery slope having police serve civil papers where there is often no direct consequence for citizens to blow them off.
Posted by: kman

Re: Homeowner has "right to resist" LEO's - 03/26/07 08:46 PM

I'll start by saying that I'm a pro law and order man. Ive been an LEO and I'll go back to security when I get released from active duty. That having been said I agree with the judge. The man had a right, and possibly a duty to resist the unlawful invasion of his home. There's a body of case law to back it up.Any LEO should know better than to do what those two did. It's fortunate that no one was killed or seriously injured. And the tax payers will suffer when a jury awards the homeowner damages or the county settles out of court. I know of at least two other cases where te initial unlawful behavior of LEOs resulted in civilian and LEO fatalities. My question is what consequences should the two deputies face? Zeal to do ones job should in no way protect them from the consequences of breaking the law. There's no mention of charges or even internal disciplinary process. The prosecutor,,who represents all of the people ignored the unlawful acts of the LEOs and thought he had a slam dunk against the homeowner. Whom by the way, he has an equal duty to represent.
Morons like those two and make it hard for the rest to gain trust and respect nessessary to do a good job.
K
Posted by: sopwith21

Re: Homeowner has "right to resist" LEO's - 03/26/07 09:27 PM

Quote:

The man had a right, and possibly a duty to resist the unlawful invasion of his home. There's a body of case law to back it up.



A man has a duty to defend his home whether there is any law to back it up or not.
Posted by: Bushi_no_ki

Re: Homeowner has "right to resist" LEO's - 04/16/07 10:01 PM

A'right kman, time for some active duty backup for this case. We in the military have some pretty hefty Rules of Engagement (ROE) to abide by when in theater. Just like LEO, we can't just shoot someone for thinking they're a terrorist laying bombs, we actually have to know they are and go through several steps before we open fire. Violate the ROE, and you are responsible for the consequences. And what were these civil papers for? a knock on the front door or UPS would serve just as well.

Now, I'm not anti-cop, but there are rules in place for good reasons, one of them being to protect ordinary citizens from abuse of power, and this is exactly what this case seems to be about. Two bad cops just gave all cops a bad name, basically.
Posted by: hunterkell

Re: Homeowner has "right to resist" LEO's - 04/23/07 12:56 PM

Bush no ki,

I challenge your assertion that those two cops gave all cops a bad name.

Their actions in no way reflect upon other police officers actions, no more than a military member of your branch doing something illegal, heinous, or otherwise just wrong reflect negatively upon you.

That is a type of stereo typing that I find objectionable.

That is the same thing as saying that if a man from south Korea shoots up a college than his actions reflect negatively upon all south Koreans.....I don't believe that.

Kel
Posted by: Bushi_no_ki

Re: Homeowner has "right to resist" LEO's - 04/28/07 12:47 AM

Kel, I'm not saying that all cops are bad, my assertion is about this kind of thing making the news and making people wonder if they can really trust their local LEO. My grandfather was a cop. Many of his friends were cops. I have friends who are cops. They are all good cops who do their job well. But these two made the news by abusing their positional authority AND getting their butts kicked in the process.

Ultimately, being a cop is like being a soldier. You have to keep an eye on what the guy to your left or right does, otherwise you all pay for his screwups.
Posted by: hunterkell

Re: Homeowner has "right to resist" LEO's - 04/28/07 10:45 AM

B,

Again, I respectfully disagree with your assertions. I have never "paid" for any other police officer's misconduct (other than my own).

Many police officers do have that "in the trenches" type state of mind. Where they view being a LEO is like being a soldier in a war. To put it simply, I do not feel that is true (at least in my case).

I submit that professionalism is the key and it allows one to be a good police officer while doing a good job and respecting others and their rights.

K
Posted by: Bushi_no_ki

Re: Homeowner has "right to resist" LEO's - 04/28/07 09:53 PM

Kel, that is exactly the kind of attitude that makes a good cop. My guess is that you do try and do something when you know another officer is about to screw up. At least report to a superior or something. But there is a similarity to the military if you're LEO. When someone else who wears the same uniform screws up, it doesn't matter if it's you who did it, the uniform itself just looks bad. People like that, who do the wrong thing on a power trip, [censored] me off because they make good men like my Grandfather and my friends look bad.
Posted by: Hapkid0ist

Re: Homeowner has "right to resist" LEO's - 07/02/07 05:11 AM

When a police officer breaks the law, he in turn becomes a criminal to some degree. The badge, uniform and gun do not make this any different. What makes it different is the mentality and mindset of fellow law enforcement personnel, attorneys and judges. As a cop in Va, we had an officer who was corrupt. The Commonwealth Attorney even told the Police Chief that he would never try a case that this officer brought forth. So what happened, this cop was put behind a desk, given a promotion to Lieutenant and a pay-raise, not fired and arrested. The fact is when a citizen gets involved with an officer the legal system most times makes the assumption that the cop is correct based solely on he or she being a cop. They are considered to be more credible that the general public and themselves believe that they have rights above the general public. And in many situations, unless an officer's conduct/wrong doing is brought before the public, then any actions against them will likely be minimal or light.
Many cops bank on the fact that the average citizen does not know the law. They use this to their advantage when dealing with the public.
Example: A friend and I went out for a drink a while back. He was pulled over for suspected DUI. As he was being tested the other officer came to the passenger side and began demanding info and ID from me. He was in no way being polite or professional. In my opinion anyways. I sat there looked at him and asked him why, was he planning on charging me with anything. He asked me if I had done anything illegal. I told him that I was nothing more than a passenger and that as a prior cop myself I was just ensuring to protect myself and my rights. This is when his attitude change 180. I was able to get out of the car and even speak with my friend for 20 min before they took him to booking. The fact is when they thought that I was an ignorant citizen, they chose to treat me one way. Yet when they realized that I knew better, they treated me different and afforded my courtesies that I know they would not have done before hand. And to top it all off, when we went to court to hear the judge, (I was there for moral support) the pros. atty said that in the officers statement that my friend had pulled in front of a city bus. Yet it was 230 in the morning and the buses had stopped running and if this was a fact, then they chose to wait and tail us for 5 min before pulling us over. Even though he had apparently, recklessly pulled out in front of a bus.
The fact is not all cops are bad, but not all are good either, and they will take advantage of you just as quickly as anyone else.
Posted by: ExCon

Re: Homeowner has "right to resist" LEO's - 07/03/07 01:35 AM

Quote:

When a police officer breaks the law, he in turn becomes a criminal to some degree. The badge, uniform and gun do not make this any different. What makes it different is the mentality and mindset of fellow law enforcement personnel, attorneys and judges.




Quote:

The fact is when a citizen gets involved with an officer the legal system most times makes the assumption that the cop is correct based solely on he or she being a cop. They are considered to be more credible that the general public and themselves believe that they have rights above the general public. And in many situations, unless an officer's conduct/wrong doing is brought before the public, then any actions against them will likely be minimal or light.




Quote:

Many cops bank on the fact that the average citizen does not know the law. They use this to their advantage when dealing with the public.




Quote:

The fact is not all cops are bad, but not all are good either, and they will take advantage of you just as quickly as anyone else.




Good points Hapkid0ist
Posted by: Bushi_no_ki

Re: Homeowner has "right to resist" LEO's - 07/12/07 11:13 PM

An excellent situation to point out in this thread would be Abu Ghraib. I just spent a month in field training, and we had all sorts of briefings and classes regarding civilians in country. I had a couple of chances to put such things to the test. One of the things is to always verify who you're dealing with. The other is that we are not to go out "guns blazing" every time we face an unknown vehicle. The third is to not hesitate to use force when necessary. My platoon did good, with only one glitch the entire time. That would be the lack of force when necessary. I got a good comment for making sure I properly ID'ed a target before firing. Being a good cop is like being a good soldier. You stay within the rules, but you are always willing to use the force necessary to do your job. And when off duty, you behave as if you're off duty, which is to say, another "civilian" on the streets. Even if you are doing something job related.
Posted by: Midnightcrawler

Re: Homeowner has "right to resist" LEO's - 07/13/07 01:54 PM

I don't know if the homeowner has the 'right to resist' in the UK. Does anybody else know?