Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Law Enforcement Officers

AllGov ^ | June 11, 2012 | Noel Brinkerhoff

[muawiyah]

They used a much more limited vocabulary in those days. But if you think I do not have a right, or the power, to call the cops, you got another think coming buster.

Should be ringing your door bell any minute now.

[Altariel]

Actually, the vocabulary of those men was quite extensive.

They did not confuse “thing” and “think”, for instance; nor did they casually substitute “power” for “right”, as you suggest.

They understood that words have meanings, and that one selects precisely the right word for the occasion, particularly when one is writing the highest law of the land.

I see you have not yet researched why the tenth amendment was worded the way the Founders worded it.

[muawiyah]

You can speculate about whatever you want. "Or the people" is very important to students of the 10th, and yet most analysts say 'eh, it was added as an afterthought ~ a written comment to a printed version of the bill of rights' as if it has no more meaning than that.

It's obvious to everyone else outside of the Leftwingtard literary mainstream that "or the people" clearly reiterates that THE PEOPLE are the ultimate authority from whom all "Powers" are taken and to whom all "Rights" are given by God.

Please learn to use synonymns. I did. They are wonderful things.

[Altariel]

I’m very well aware of how the tenth reads. The Founders wrote it very precisely. They were *extremely* careful as to how they worded the Constitution.

“Right” and “power” are not legally or constitutionally equivalent. Claiming that they are is flaunting Constitutional and legal ignorance.

[muawiyah]

Nw, it keeps the leftwingtards at bay. Sometimes, as we’ve found out after two centuries of practice, we find the Constitution reads a bit fuzzy. Requires a lot of historical research to determine the original intent, not just a book on grammar and a dictionary.

[FreeReign]

k) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless: (1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is: (A) acting unlawfully;

A person is justified in using reasonable force against a cop simply when a cop acts unlawfully?

What??

[D-fendr]

In cases and situations where a person is justified in using reasonable force against a non-public servant as well.

Law puts a public servant acting unlawfully in the same category as another citizen, rather than immune.

[FreeReign]

I screwed up my post. Let me try again.

k) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless: (1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is: (A) acting unlawfully;

A person is justified in using deadly force against a cop simply when a cop acts unlawfully?

What??

[D-fendr]

Read the whole thing. It’s pretty clear.

Reasonable/deadly.. etc. are the same as usual with non-public servants. Difference in this law is in whether the citizen can be prosecuted if used against public servant acting unlawfully.

Just unlawful is not enough, regular restrictions on reasonable and deadly apply.