Posted on 06/12/2012 4:31:20 AM PDT by Rennes Templar
Police officers in Indiana are upset over a new law allowing residents to use deadly force against public servants, including law enforcement officers, who unlawfully enter their homes. It was signed by Republican Governor Mitch Daniels in March.
The first of its kind in the United States, the law was adopted after the state Supreme Court went too far in one of its rulings last year, according to supporters. The case in question involved a man who assaulted an officer during a domestic violence call. The court ruled that there was “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”
The National Rifle Association lobbied for the new law, arguing that the court decision had legalized police to commit unjustified entries.
Tim Downs, president of the Indiana State Fraternal Order of Police, which opposed the legislation, said the law could open the way for people who are under the influence or emotionally distressed to attack officers in their homes.
“It’s just a recipe for disaster,” Downs told Bloomberg. “It just puts a bounty on our heads.”
Now is the time for the other 49 to do the same.
Now is the time for the other 49 to do the same.
“Tim Downs, president of the Indiana State Fraternal Order of Police, which opposed the legislation, said the law could open the way for people who are under the influence or emotionally distressed to attack officers in their homes.”
But, without the law, surely that would NEVER happen.
That could be the first step in ending the “War on Drugs(TM)”....
“It just puts a bounty on our heads.”
Pity.
However every single citizen has the God given right to defend themselves from a dangerous and threatening criminal act.
When any individual crosses the line and becomes a threat to their fellow man, they are immediately subject to the right to self defense and all of the consequences.
Congratulations to the People of Indiana for sending a definitive and winning response to tyranny and to the disgusting jurists who grovel before it.
Terrific notice to statists: if you abuse your authority and unlawfully invade a citizen’s home, you may be summarily and deservingly shot.
Yes it does make life a bit tougher for the Police and I do feel for them. BUT for to long the Police have had next to zero respect for the public. Wrong addresses on warrants, no warrants, shooting of pet animals, etc.
It’s about time that they started to take their jobs seriously and make sure that the information they are acting upon is accurate. And act like Peace Officers not para-military wanna-be’s.
And yes, before I go to far there ARE instances where SWAT is required. But does EVERY department have to have one? Why not have a State Police based one that all of the local offices can use?
vaudine
The lesson of WACO is to pick up the person of interest in public instead of SWATing their house (or getting the address wrong).
Agreed.
Public employees are not above the law. They are our servants, whether they like to hear it or not.
Downs says “It just puts a bounty on our heads.” I say welcome to the club. Now you know how we (citizens) feel.
The Indiana legislature picked up the challenge, and passed the law again.
It was the cops that militarized themselves and created the “us/them” mentality. I hope they appreciate what they have sown
Good for Daniels and its really good for the citizens of indiana.Message to cops make sure you have the correct address.
“Now is the time for the other 49 to do the same.”
Why not all 57?
“The law is an ass.”
The Indiana supreemes jumped the shark but the legislature might have taken a better aproach to resolve the issue.
End the damn WOD that spawned these travesties of justice
Keep the goons out of people’s homes and all will be well. You know they will come in uninvited.
48 states. Buried in the Texas Penal Code is a similar provision.
From Texas Penal Code, Title II, Chapter 9, Subchapter C - http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
Specifically, Section 9.31(c):
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer’s (or other person’s) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
Section 9.31(d) tells us where to look to determine if we can use deadly force:
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
If we look at 9.32, guess what we see.
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force;
Indiana wasn’t the first; I believe that those provisions have been there since 1973. Further on in 9.32, the recently added Castle Law provisions further say “don’t even think about illegal entry without a warrant.”
Indiana: First state in the union to have SWAT double check a suspect’s address, before conducting a raid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.