Good. I want you worried; maybe you'll follow the law.
You are a servant of the public, not the state and should be afraid of us.
Posted on 06/06/2012 5:12:04 AM PDT by marktwain
June 5 (Bloomberg) -- Every time police Sergeant Joseph Hubbard stops a speeder or serves a search warrant, he says he worries suspects assume they can open fire -- without breaking the law.
Hubbard, a 17-year veteran of the police department in Jeffersonville, Indiana, says his apprehension stems from a state law approved this year that allows residents to use deadly force in response to the "unlawful intrusion" by a "public servant" to protect themselves and others, or their property.
"If I pull over a car and I walk up to it and the guy shoots me, he's going to say, 'Well, he was trying to illegally enter my property,'" said Hubbard, 40, who is president of Jeffersonville Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 100. "Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law."
Indiana is the first U.S. state to specifically allow force against officers, according to the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys in Washington, which represents and supports prosecutors. The National Rifle Association pushed for the law, saying an unfavorable court decision made the need clear and that it would allow homeowners to defend themselves during a violent, unjustified attack. Police lobbied against it.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
The ability to defend yourself against unjustified government attack is at the very core of American philosophy.
Break into my home in the dead of the night and there will be No question that I will open fire.
Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six any day.
Sherman, set the Wayback Machine for 2005, New Orleans, after Katrina.
Cops looting, confiscating property, including guns, intent on disarming the population.
Ups the ante on ‘Swatting’.
Good. I want you worried; maybe you'll follow the law.
You are a servant of the public, not the state and should be afraid of us.
Good law, long time in coming. Any cop who is worried should a) examine how he goes about his job of “protecting and serving,” or b) find another line of work. Seldom a day goes by here on FR that you don’t read about some sort of abuse of authority by police ( can you say Aurora, CO?). It’s long past time when cops should be able to get away with murder unchallenged. For that matter, they should all start obeying the same laws they are sworn to enforce against the rest of us. Our useless former Chief of Police told me that he routinely used waving his gun at other motorists whom he felt were driving too close behind him. Here in California, for the rest of us that’s a felony!
Hubbard is a drama queen, spreading falsehood. The law allows force vs. force, resistance. It does not allow deadly force, unless the person is reasonably in fear of death or serious injury, and a traffic stop does not produce a reasonable fear of serious injury.
Oh, poor little piggie; how does it feel to have the shoe on the other foot?
We need to remind the writer of this article that we are not Indianans; we are Hoosiers.
This is the second time Indiana passed it. The first one was struck down by a petulant Indiana Supreme Court, without mentioning the statutory right to use force to resist unlawful entry.
If a SWAT team breaks down your door in the middle of the night, I doubt you’d have time to open fire let alone even get to your gun before they invade your bedroom. And if you do manage to get your weapon, opening fire on a SWAT team will guarantee that you’ll be carried by six, regardless of whether or not SWAT had the right house.
This is the problem I have, overall. While homeowners may be justified in opening fire against a LEO abusing his/her power, backup is just a radio call away, and if you make it out of your house with both legs unbroken, the chances of making it out of the courtroom with your freedom are somewhere between slim and none.
If you want to serve a warrant,
walk up to the door with your sidearm holstered,
warrant in hand.
If you don’t want to do it this way, find another line of work.
A shame, really, since most do. But once again we see that "a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch".
Need a law to protect dogs.
Right now if an officer feels threatened they can shoot the dog.
Yeah, that 17 1/2 pound dog was a real threat.
“Law enforcement officers have nonlethal options for dealing with threatening pets”
http://fayobserver.com/articles/2012/06/04/1181457
Welcome to our world, law-boy. Sucks, doesn't it? Don't forget to bring the dog.
No one should have to roll over and be abused in their own home. I would rather be carried by 6 rather than be assaulted in my own home, in my own bedroom. I will defend myself, my wife, and my property in any way possible, even bare-handed. My children will at least know I went down fighting doing what I felt was right, rather than being subjugated by someone on a power trip/adrenalin rush, or under the influence of drugs or worse.
Enough is enough. I have drawn the line...
Oh, horse hockey, Hubbard. Your statement is absurd on its face.
I don’t know if this would be a full solution, but I think it’d be a start.
First, codify the absolute right of people to record, both audio and video, any official act of an officer of the law. There is absolutely no reason they should object to being recorded while performing their duties.
Second, require LEO’s to carry, and personally pay for, malpractice insurance, just like a doctor. Any cruddy doctor will eventually be unable to afford the insurance and will find another line of work.
Along with this, any individual malpractice protections that LEO’s currently have need to be pierced, so that the insuring entity is exposed to the actions of the officer.
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.