Posted on 02/24/2012 6:46:48 AM PST by Abathar
INDIANAPOLIS -- A bill that would allow property owners to use deadly force to resist police is facing increasing resistance of its own.
The proposed legislation would provide property owners the right to use deadly force to stop an illegal entry by law enforcement officers.
Current Indiana law gives homeowners the right to use whatever force they deem necessary to defend themselves and their property against unlawful entry. However, Senate Bill No. 1 is aimed directly at the police and would give property owners the same authority to use deadly force against officers perceived to have made unlawful entry.
The Marion County Prosecutor's Office opposes that bill, RTV6's Jack Rinehart reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at theindychannel.com ...
Your assertion that he had gone violent is incorrect. He threw a phone against a wall. Tell the facts, so that people can make informed decisions. The State Supreme Court Decision was crap and they should have just upheld the Appeals Court ruling which was for a new trial with the defense’s tendered jury instruction.
People don't have all day to stand there and debate the who struck john's part when john is still tossing stuff.
If you don't want these things to happen you need to prevent your women from calling the cops ~ this ain't Saudi Arabia!
Indeed, if they could pretend to be civilized long enough to knock on the door and serve the warrant as any decent person would expect, they'd find a lot more people supporting them than they presently do.
From the Court record Mary tried to call her sister but Barnes grabbed the phone from her hand and threw it against the wall. Mary called 911 from her cell phone and informed the dispatcher that Barnes was throwing things around the apartment but that he had not struck her.
If you don't want these things to happen you need to prevent your women from calling the cops ~ this ain't Saudi Arabia!
If you were not so full of it you would debate based upon facts and the discussion at hand and not bring in bs.
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/police-officer-pleads-guilty-to-robbing-drug-dealers/
Two big problems with letting someone who yells “Police” break into your home with guns.
#1) they might be criminals not the Police, and they are there to victimize you.
#2) as the story above shows, they might criminals AND the Police, and they are there to victimize you.
Only Islamofascist fanatics believe the word of a woman is worth half that of a man, so please don't get into that stuff. She called and her word is as good as her ex-husbands.
I completely support the Senate’s version of this bill, and think the House should pass it as is. Afterwards, the Supreme court judges should be removed from office, that made this idiotic decision.
BS
Sorry for ya’ but that’s the way it is. Women got rights ~
Not sure why you want to wait to remove the justices. They should be REMOVED NOW ~
If they are on your porch, don’t shoot, if they kick down your door without a warrent, I’d shoot. It could be anyone in a rented uniform..especially since alot of swat have their faces covered so you cannot recognize them, just like a burglar. They don’t want to be identified...that is wrong also...
Wow, you just keep proving your ignorance of this case. She did not have her rights violated, his rights were violated.
He was violating her rights. She called the cops. He became belligerent.
He should not have interfered in the process.
You are a "newbie".
Nope. The IN Supreme court made it clear that the State of IN no longer recognizes the right to resist UNLAWFUL entry by the police. (I explain in detail here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2761352/posts )
Yes, one is acting unlawfully, and the other is acting... unlawfully.
Wow, so mature.
As far as your ascertain that he violated her rights show me where he did this, he was not charged with it nor has he been sued over it. Once again you are blowing smoke.
He was moving out.
Key word in that sentence “was”, not had.
Minute he stepped out of there to load his vehicle she was the sole resident (although a landlord might have made a claim on him for damages and such, but you could do that to any casual visitor as well).
The real dispute here was domestic in nature ~ but she called the cops ~ as was her right, and he decided he had to interfere in the process.
Does not compute in American law.
You just can not understand that the police and the Indiana Supreme Court got the decision wrong. Even the court said he was moving out, not that he had moced out.
American law supports my view point. See
United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 594 (1948)
I'm pointing to the notion you have that if someone hasn't been sued he didn't cause damage or violate rights.
Nothing in the record shows you point of view. How did he violate her rights?
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.