That’s not the law. Those are your feelings. That is how you would want it if you were king. The LE is they can enter without a warrant to retrieve you.
Armed bounty hunters enter home in Buffalo with police and no warrant
- Thread starter Saltwater60
- Start date
- Status
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Armed private citizens kicking in your front door in the middle of the night would put anyone in reasonable fear of their life.
That's all Art 35 requires. It doesn't matter if they have a legal right to do it, only that it's reasonable for you to assume they are there to hurt you.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
And the law is you can defend yourself from a threat.
Even if they were legally justified in their entry, there is no way for the homeowner to know, and he is justified in stopping the threat.
And we still haven't established that these guys had the right to be there in the first place. Just that they thought they did.
Again you were not instructed and certified in this. I was. There is no defense to resisting lawful actions. Pay for proper instruction and legal counsel by a top A35 lawyer or remain ignorant on it. Don’t matter to me.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Art 35 doesn't give you a defense to resisting *police*. These guys aren't police.
We’ve established the law and SC rulings. You are speculating that they didn’t identify. You are trying to write your own version of events and this is where I am no longer interested in conversation with you on this.
I’ll take my official state instruction and top lawyer instruction over what you think you read and understood in google.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
The law and SC rulings say nothing about not being able to defend yourself from a perceived home invasion.
These guys could very well have identified themselves.
But either they identified themselves as private citizens (or bail agents or whatever they want to call themselves) or they were impersonating police.
There is precedent (not in NY, but it's still precedent) that *actual law enforcement* serving a warrant to the wrong address can be shot and the home owner is not at fault.
Father Shot 2 Officers Who Mistakenly Served Warrant at His Home
A father protecting his daughter from what he thought was a home invasion shot two police officers who mistakenly entered his apartment in District Heights, Maryland, the Prince George’s County’s police chief says.
www.nbcwashington.com
Here's some more examples.
A No-Knock Raid in Houston Led to Deaths and Police Injuries. Should Police Rethink the Practice?
The police tactic is controversial but common—particularly in Texas.
www.texasmonthly.com
But, the bottom line is that if this guy had been armed and killed both of them, they could put "they were just doing their jobs" on their tombstones. The guy would have a decent chance of going home at the end of the day. The goons kicking in his door, not so much.
Robin
.475 A&M Magnum
They wouldn't be getting the warrant, the cops they took their evidence to would be making the "attempt" to acquire the warrant
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Robin
.475 A&M Magnum
They may have a warrant for the bail jumpers arrest, they need evidence, like hot pursuit, that he is holed up in that house in order to enter and even then they would be smart to surveil while they call the police and wait for their arrival.
Robin
Robin
Steal2B
.700 Nitro Express
Actually just checked someone else's Westlaw account and there are in fact multiple instances in NYS (that were introduced during other trials) of an officer being killed after breaking in to the wrong home and no charges were filed against the distraught homeowners who reacted to what they thought was a deadly home invasion.
Similarly there are cases with no homeowner charges after a Bounty Hunter (Bail Recovery Agent) was killed after breaking in to the wrong NYS house and in fact the other Bounty Hunters were arrested, charged, and it looks like plea bargained to lesser charges.
They had all lawful purpose for their actions. Don’t want your door kicked in don’t harbor criminals. Name call all you want. It only further diminishes your argument. Lastly this want the wrong house. That moots any point you try to make. He just want there at the time.The law and SC rulings say nothing about not being able to defend yourself from a perceived home invasion.
These guys could very well have identified themselves.
But either they identified themselves as private citizens (or bail agents or whatever they want to call themselves) or they were impersonating police.
There is precedent (not in NY, but it's still precedent) that *actual law enforcement* serving a warrant to the wrong address can be shot and the home owner is not at fault.
Father Shot 2 Officers Who Mistakenly Served Warrant at His Home
A father protecting his daughter from what he thought was a home invasion shot two police officers who mistakenly entered his apartment in District Heights, Maryland, the Prince George’s County’s police chief says.
Here's some more examples.
A No-Knock Raid in Houston Led to Deaths and Police Injuries. Should Police Rethink the Practice?
The police tactic is controversial but common—particularly in Texas.
But, the bottom line is that if this guy had been armed and killed both of them, they could put "they were just doing their jobs" on their tombstones. The guy would have a decent chance of going home at the end of the day. The goons kicking in his door, not so much.
I read the little story attached to this thread.
The following is as of right now, without all information in regards to the whole story....
Show up at my home like this, you will not be leaving. I can promise you this. The headlines would be very different.
I would be interested to see if these two BH has a license in NY State. I am guessing, maybe not.
The Officers on scene stated they did not even know the agency in which the Hunters were part of.
This is the reason for owning guns and being trained on the use of those firearms. This was a home invasion, nothing more and nothing less. There are some that will claim they know all about these Bounty Hunters, from comments, they actually know very little.
Article 35 here in NY State would 100% back up the home owner. 100%!!
The following is as of right now, without all information in regards to the whole story....
Show up at my home like this, you will not be leaving. I can promise you this. The headlines would be very different.
I would be interested to see if these two BH has a license in NY State. I am guessing, maybe not.
The Officers on scene stated they did not even know the agency in which the Hunters were part of.
This is the reason for owning guns and being trained on the use of those firearms. This was a home invasion, nothing more and nothing less. There are some that will claim they know all about these Bounty Hunters, from comments, they actually know very little.
Article 35 here in NY State would 100% back up the home owner. 100%!!
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Lawful purpose for your actions doesn't mean you can't be killed for them.
There are many cases where people who *lived in the home* have been killed because of a mistaken identity and the person who killed them isn't convicted (or in many cases even charged).
Just because you are legally allowed to enter the house doesn't mean the residents can't legally shoot you for doing it. Especially given than they don't *know* you are legally allowed to be there.
Art 35 is about what the shooter reasonably believed at the time, not what the actual situation is. As long as they can make a reasonable case that they thought a home invasion was occurring they are entitled to defend themselves. Doesn't matter how much authority you think you have for being there, it just matters how much they *reasonably think* you have.
BTW.... I am a near expert in Article 35. I also fully understand all of the law that assisted in the creation and continues to back up the Article.
Armed Bounty Hunters Terrify Family With Midnight Warrantless Search
BUFALLO, NY- Jake Reinhardt, his fiancée, and their 3-year-old daughter were all sound asleep when someone banged on their front door so hard that the noise echoed through the cold, dark January ni…
www.wivb.com
This is the Home video. This makes my statements even stronger.... They did not announce who they were or who they were there with. They threatened to break down the door. I would have waited for the door to be kicked in and I would have created a much different head line.
Last edited:
Lol I’m not going to debate it with you. There are a few things you said that are wrong. You do have a basic understanding of A35 which is good but you do not have any in depth understanding of what is behind the words and what actions were taken in the past and have set precedent for the future. It’s more than you think. Your actions must be
1: Reasonable
2: necessary
3: lawful
you won’t find that in A35; google in your basement edition lol. But I assure you it’s there and it applies.
If 1 member of grand jury thinks they would have acted differently BAM you’re indicted. Shooting an enforcement agent who is lawfully making entry to apprehend your scum bag relative who is an active criminal is not going to fly with a grand jury. I could go on but I’m on my phone and it’s a pain. Trust me there’s a lot you don’t know. The problem is you don’t know what you don’t know.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
I would take your argument more seriously if there weren't so many counterexamples already listed in this thread.
You also seem to be be conflating the "lawful" requirement of Art 35.
It says that the actions of the homeowner must be lawful (which obviously they were, he was sitting at home).
It does not say that the actions of the person who you shoot being lawful negates the defense.
Read again. There are 3 prongs to it. You must meet all 3. If 1 jurist thinks otherwise you’re indicted. Grand jury’s are not stupid people. Add on top of that jury instructions. Lol. Good luck.
Hmmmmm..... Just because a person is a lawyer does not mean someone who is not cannot know or do what a lawyer can do. I have represented myself in Federal court and finalized a suit much to my satisfaction and in criminal court to a dismissal. I have transferred ownership of a home by myself and saved much money. I read code for my position of ZBA chairman and have been proven correct when our town Attorney said differently. All that being said tooting my own horn I do add, you are correct, we do need to be careful in how we read code, precedence on how the courts have rendered code is important to know. And in cases of tax, how the IRS has interpreted code, and then how the courts have after the IRS ruling was challenged in court.
Laws are often written FOOLISHLY with hast, by design very obtuse to allow wiggle room for selective enforcement - that is a serious issue I wish was addressed. Or when code is changed not addressing all areas that code effects and thus creating conflict of code.. Keeps the lawyers in the MONEY!
Saltwater60
.950 JDJ
Funny it’s removed. Says page not available. I wanted to see this video so bad. I found it another way. The video doesn’t look good.Armed Bounty Hunters Terrify Family With Midnight Warrantless Search
BUFALLO, NY- Jake Reinhardt, his fiancée, and their 3-year-old daughter were all sound asleep when someone banged on their front door so hard that the noise echoed through the cold, dark January ni…
This is the Home video. This makes my statements even stronger.... They did not announce who they were or who they were there with. They threatened to break down the door. I would have waited for the door to be kicked in and I would have created a much different head line.
Last edited:
I can assure you there is more to A35 than what you can get from google university. Had probably THE top layer go over it extensively. If you don’t know it then you don’t know it. Better hope what you did checks all necessary boxes because the grand jury will he instructed in them the way I was. Ignorance is not a valid excuse.
It is still there just at a different URL:
Armed Bounty Hunters Terrify Family With Midnight Warrantless Search
BUFALLO, NY- Jake Reinhardt, his fiancée, and their 3-year-old daughter were all sound asleep when someone banged on their front door so hard that the noise echoed through the cold, dark January ni…
www.wivb.com
BTW- I do not use google..... I am a Duck guy,... hahaha
I am curious, you talk like you are an expert in this...
What exact training and education do you have in regards the Article 35 and the CPL/Penal codes??
spat
.700 Nitro Express
I thought that was the only one in question.
Given the homeowners perception of the situation, do you think either of the other 2 are in doubt ?
He thought he was the victim of a home invasion by multiple armed individuals. DPF being "reasonable" and "necessary" seem obvious.
Honestly in this case I think the home owner would have a pretty strong case. The bounty hunters trying to use Art 35 as a defense if they returned fire would be much harder to sell to a jury.
drowhawk
.44 mag
They weren't harboring a criminal. That's the point. There was no unlawful activity in the home. None. You keep beating the phrase over the head "lawful purposes" but yet you only apply it to the BH and LE. It DOES work both ways, regardless of what you think. As Spat said, there have been cases where *actual* LE was killed in a no knock raid, and the residents received acquittal.
Like GOPerfect said, headlines would be VERY different if they showed up to my door in this manor. Not a LE with a no-knock warrant? You have no business knocking down anyone's door.
They can argue A35 all they want from their grave. The prosecution will have a very tough case to make with only the defense as witness.
I don't think there's a single person on here that would want to harm LE or BH. In fact, I would happily come to the door and even invite them in to search for their bounty if they were polite. Threaten to kick in my door, all bets are off.
DCJS
- Status